Russian Carrier Plans Part One

[[email protected]]

See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html

Nice plans, but can they be carried out?

[Mr.Smartypants[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> See:
>
> http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
>
> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?



Why not?


Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:

:On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
:> See:
:>
:> http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
:>
:> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
:>
:
:Why not?
:
:Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
:

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

They don't.

The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
claim they want to.

What reason is there to believe they can do it?


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Mr.Smartypants[_3_]]

On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> :> See:
> :>
> :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
> :>
> :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
> :>
> :
> :Why not?
> :
> :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
> :
>
> If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
> aviation organization.
>
> They don't.
>
> The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
> carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
> claim they want to.
>
> What reason is there to believe they can do it?



I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.

Thousands of tanks.

Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.

Ammo.

and all while under attack.






>
> --
> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> -- Charles Pinckney

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >
> > :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> > :> See:
> > :>
> >
:>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
> > :>
> > :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
> > :>
> > :
> > :Why not?
> > :
> > :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
> > :
> >
> > If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
> > aviation organization.
> >
> > They don't.
> >
> > The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
> > carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
> > claim they want to.
> >
> > What reason is there to believe they can do it?
>
>
>
> I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
>
> Thousands of tanks.
>
> Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
>
> Ammo.
>
> and all while under attack.
>

ships require a bit more infrustructure than tanks or submachine guns.
any locomotive ot truck factory can make a tank and they can be located
anywhere
a shipyard has to be in a spot with deep water access.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:

:On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
:>
:> :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
:> :> See:
:> :>
:> :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
:> :>
:> :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
:> :>
:> :
:> :Why not?
:> :
:> :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
:> :
:>
:> If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
:> aviation organization.
:>
:> They don't.
:>
:> The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
:> carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
:> claim they want to.
:>
:> What reason is there to believe they can do it?
:>
:
:I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
:
:Thousands of tanks.
:
:Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
:
:Ammo.
:
:and all while under attack.
:

I guess you don't know the difference between manufacturing bullets
and building carrier strike groups.


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:

:On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
:>
:> :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
:> :> See:
:> :>
:> :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
:> :>
:> :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
:> :>
:> :
:> :Why not?
:> :
:> :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
:> :
:>
:> If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
:> aviation organization.
:>
:> They don't.
:>
:> The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
:> carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
:> claim they want to.
:>
:> What reason is there to believe they can do it?
:>
:
:I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
:
:Thousands of tanks.
:
:Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
:
:Ammo.
:
:and all while under attack.
:

I guess you don't know the difference between manufacturing bullets
and building carrier strike groups.


--
"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

[Mr.Smartypants[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
>
> ...> On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> > > :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> > > :> See:
> > > :>
>
> :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
>
>
>
>
>
> > > :>
> > > :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
> > > :>
> > > :
> > > :Why not?
> > > :
> > > :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
> > > :
>
> > > If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
> > > aviation organization.
>
> > > They don't.
>
> > > The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
> > > carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
> > > claim they want to.
>
> > > What reason is there to believe they can do it?
>
> > I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
>
> > Thousands of tanks.
>
> > Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
>
> > Ammo.
>
> > and all while under attack.
>
> ships require a bit more infrustructure than tanks or submachine guns.
> any locomotive ot truck factory can make a tank and they can be located
> anywhere
> a shipyard has to be in a spot with deep water access.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Now you're trying to tell us that Russia has NO shipyards and no deep
water ports.

[Mr.Smartypants[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 8:38 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> :On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote::> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> :>
> :> :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> :> :> See:
> :> :>
> :> :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
> :> :>
> :> :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :Why not?
> :> :
> :> :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
> :> :
> :>
> :> If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
> :> aviation organization.
> :>
> :> They don't.
> :>
> :> The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
> :> carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
> :> claim they want to.
> :>
> :> What reason is there to believe they can do it?
> :>
> :
> :I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
> :
> :Thousands of tanks.
> :
> :Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
> :
> :Ammo.
> :
> :and all while under attack.
> :
>
> I guess you don't know the difference between manufacturing bullets
> and building carrier strike groups.


I guess you believe that the Soviets never had any kind of navy and
now Russia is venturing into naval shipbuilding for the very first
time EVER!!







>
> --
> "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

[Fred J. McCall]

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:

:On Nov 17, 8:38 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
:>
:> :On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote::> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :> :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
:> :> :> See:
:> :> :>
:> :> :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Why not?
:> :> :
:> :> :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
:> :> aviation organization.
:> :>
:> :> They don't.
:> :>
:> :> The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
:> :> carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
:> :> claim they want to.
:> :>
:> :> What reason is there to believe they can do it?
:> :>
:> :
:> :I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
:> :
:> :Thousands of tanks.
:> :
:> :Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
:> :
:> :Ammo.
:> :
:> :and all while under attack.
:> :
:>
:> I guess you don't know the difference between manufacturing bullets
:> and building carrier strike groups.
:>
:
:I guess you believe that the Soviets never had any kind of navy and
:now Russia is venturing into naval shipbuilding for the very first
:time EVER!!
:

I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own
ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above.

Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than
you ever will.

Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and
suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups.

Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment,
more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything
associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they
are going to sustain.

Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very
few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin
Villages.

<plonk>


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

> I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own
> ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above.
>
> Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than
> you ever will.
>
> Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and
> suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups.
>
> Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment,
> more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything
> associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they
> are going to sustain.
>
> Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very
> few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin
> Villages.

Dear Fred:

Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet
Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV
construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and
Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ? IMHO this is the
key issue, after all the Kutnetzov seems to be active in the Russian
Navy, so, it's feasible that they can design & engineer starting from
the existing prototype (Kutnetzov) ?

Let's leave trolls and loons aside, and keep on Naval course ;)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Fred J. McCall]

"dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:
:> I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own
:> ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above.
:>
:> Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than
:> you ever will.
:>
:> Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and
:> suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups.
:>
:> Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment,
:> more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything
:> associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they
:> are going to sustain.
:>
:> Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very
:> few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin
:> Villages.
:
:Dear Fred:
:
:Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet
:Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV
:construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and
:Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ?
:

The problem isn't pure construction. However, none of those ships are
actually aircraft carriers. They range from helicopter carriers that
the USSR quickly discovered weren't big enough for the job (hence only
building a pair of Moskvas rather than the 12 originally planned)
through a strike cruiser with aviation assets (Kiev, with a handful of
very limited fixed wing assets) up through what I would call an
aviation-capable strike cruiser (Kutnetzov) with a few dozen
relatively capable fixed-wing aircraft.

The real issue is that they won't be able to come up with crews and
infrastructure on the scale they're talking about even if they can
design a real carrier and build them that fast (keeping in mind that
they'd also be cranking out escorts and such at the same time).

:
:IMHO this is the
:key issue, after all the Kutnetzov seems to be active in the Russian
:Navy, so, it's feasible that they can design & engineer starting from
:the existing prototype (Kutnetzov) ?
:

Oh, I don't doubt they can design and engineer a carrier. The
Kutnetzov isn't a good starting point, though. Russian design
preference up to now has been to try to build 'battle group in a
single hull' ships (like Kutnetzov). This leads to some serious
compromises in virtually all areas of capability when compared to
specialized ships.

The first casualty of getting real carrier strike groups needs to be
that design philosophy.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

[snip]

Hm. Excellent food for thought

(starts ruminating)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Nov 19, 3:21 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>
> [snip]
>
> Hm. Excellent food for thought
>
> (starts ruminating)
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

The other reason was that cruisers are the largest ship that can
transit the Bosporus. Russia is basically landlocked, especially in
the West.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, dott.Piergiorgio
> writes
>Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet
>Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV
>construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and
>Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ? IMHO this is the
>key issue, after all the Kutnetzov seems to be active in the Russian
>Navy, so, it's feasible that they can design & engineer starting from
>the existing prototype (Kutnetzov) ?

Given the condition of the Kuznetsov when she deployed in 1996, she may
not be a model to emulate. The difficulty the Russians seem to have is
that their first big-deck carrier is not very successful, has been laid
up for much of her life, and has been unable to generate much by way of
carrier-capable aircrew or experience in carrier ops. (The few who did
fly from her were talented: I've seen some excellent pictures of
fast-and-low Flanker flybys taken from HMS Sheffield, who was marking
her, but there were very few of them).

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Mr.Smartypants[_2_]]

On Nov 19, 12:07 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> :
> :> I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own
> :> ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above.
> :>
> :> Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than
> :> you ever will.
> :>
> :> Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and
> :> suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups.
> :>
> :> Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment,
> :> more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything
> :> associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they
> :> are going to sustain.
> :>
> :> Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very
> :> few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin
> :> Villages.
> :
> :Dear Fred:
> :
> :Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet
> :Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV
> :construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and
> :Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ?
> :
>
> The problem isn't pure construction. However, none of those ships are
> actually aircraft carriers. They range from helicopter carriers that
> the USSR quickly discovered weren't big enough for the job (hence only
> building a pair of Moskvas rather than the 12 originally planned)
> through a strike cruiser with aviation assets (Kiev, with a handful of
> very limited fixed wing assets) up through what I would call an
> aviation-capable strike cruiser (Kutnetzov) with a few dozen
> relatively capable fixed-wing aircraft.
>
> The real issue is that they won't be able to come up with crews and
> infrastructure on the scale they're talking about even if they can
> design a real carrier and build them that fast (keeping in mind that
> they'd also be cranking out escorts and such at the same time).



Funny how the Allies managed to build literally hundreds of warships
and thousands of freighters and managed to man them all in 6 short
years of war.




>
> :
> :IMHO this is the
> :key issue, after all the Kutnetzov seems to be active in the Russian
> :Navy, so, it's feasible that they can design & engineer starting from
> :the existing prototype (Kutnetzov) ?
> :
>
> Oh, I don't doubt they can design and engineer a carrier. The
> Kutnetzov isn't a good starting point, though. Russian design
> preference up to now has been to try to build 'battle group in a
> single hull' ships (like Kutnetzov). This leads to some serious
> compromises in virtually all areas of capability when compared to
> specialized ships.
>
> The first casualty of getting real carrier strike groups needs to be
> that design philosophy.
>
> --
> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> -- Charles Pinckney

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

"Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>> >
>> > :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
>> > :> See:
>> > :>
>> >
> :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
>> > :>
>> > :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
>> > :>
>> > :
>> > :Why not?
>> > :
>> > :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
>> > :
>> >
>> > If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
>> > aviation organization.
>> >
>> > They don't.
>> >
>> > The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
>> > carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
>> > claim they want to.
>> >
>> > What reason is there to believe they can do it?
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
>>
>> Thousands of tanks.
>>
>> Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
>>
>> Ammo.
>>
>> and all while under attack.

And quite a bit of that stuff came from the US under Lend-Lease


>>
>
> ships require a bit more infrustructure than tanks or submachine guns.
> any locomotive ot truck factory can make a tank and they can be located
> anywhere
> a shipyard has to be in a spot with deep water access.
>
>

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
> >
> >
...>
On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > > > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >
> > > > :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> > > > :> See:
> > > > :>
> >
> >
:>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > :>
> > > > :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
> > > > :>
> > > > :
> > > > :Why not?
> > > > :
> > > > :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
> > > > :
> >
> > > > If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
> > > > aviation organization.
> >
> > > > They don't.
> >
> > > > The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience
in
> > > > carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
> > > > claim they want to.
> >
> > > > What reason is there to believe they can do it?
> >
> > > I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
> >
> > > Thousands of tanks.
> >
> > > Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
> >
> > > Ammo.
> >
> > > and all while under attack.
> >
> > ships require a bit more infrustructure than tanks or submachine guns.
> > any locomotive ot truck factory can make a tank and they can be located
> > anywhere
> > a shipyard has to be in a spot with deep water access.- Hide quoted
text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Now you're trying to tell us that Russia has NO shipyards and no deep
> water ports.
>

sure they have some, but not many.
leningrad/st pete is one. the black sea ports are now in the ukraine. the
ukrainians aren't about to let the ruskis back in after just having gotten
rid of them.
siberia/kamchatka would need some serious bulding programs to become useful
as a home for any modern fleets.

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 19, 3:21 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> > wrote:
> > Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Hm. Excellent food for thought
> >
> > (starts ruminating)
> >
> > Best regards from Italy,
> > Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> The other reason was that cruisers are the largest ship that can
> transit the Bosporus. Russia is basically landlocked, especially in
> the West.

the bosporus is irrelevent as sevatopol now belongs to another country.

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 19, 12:07 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:
> >
> > :Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> > :
> > :> I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own
> > :> ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as
above.
> > :>
> > :> Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than
> > :> you ever will.
> > :>
> > :> Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and
> > :> suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups.
> > :>
> > :> Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment,
> > :> more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything
> > :> associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they
> > :> are going to sustain.
> > :>
> > :> Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do
very
> > :> few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin
> > :> Villages.
> > :
> > :Dear Fred:
> > :
> > :Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet
> > :Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV
> > :construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and
> > :Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ?
> > :
> >
> > The problem isn't pure construction. However, none of those ships are
> > actually aircraft carriers. They range from helicopter carriers that
> > the USSR quickly discovered weren't big enough for the job (hence only
> > building a pair of Moskvas rather than the 12 originally planned)
> > through a strike cruiser with aviation assets (Kiev, with a handful of
> > very limited fixed wing assets) up through what I would call an
> > aviation-capable strike cruiser (Kutnetzov) with a few dozen
> > relatively capable fixed-wing aircraft.
> >
> > The real issue is that they won't be able to come up with crews and
> > infrastructure on the scale they're talking about even if they can
> > design a real carrier and build them that fast (keeping in mind that
> > they'd also be cranking out escorts and such at the same time).
>
>
>
> Funny how the Allies managed to build literally hundreds of warships
> and thousands of freighters and managed to man them all in 6 short
> years of war.
>

and none of them russian.

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:24:01 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> wrote:

>
>"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
>> On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >
...>
>On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>> > > > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
>> > > > :> See:
>> > > > :>
>> >
>> >
>:>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > :>
>> > > > :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
>> > > > :>
>> > > > :
>> > > > :Why not?
>> > > > :
>> > > > :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
>> > > > :
>> >
>> > > > If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
>> > > > aviation organization.
>> >
>> > > > They don't.
>> >
>> > > > The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience
>in
>> > > > carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
>> > > > claim they want to.
>> >
>> > > > What reason is there to believe they can do it?
>> >
>> > > I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
>> >
>> > > Thousands of tanks.
>> >
>> > > Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
>> >
>> > > Ammo.
>> >
>> > > and all while under attack.
>> >
>> > ships require a bit more infrustructure than tanks or submachine guns.
>> > any locomotive ot truck factory can make a tank and they can be located
>> > anywhere
>> > a shipyard has to be in a spot with deep water access.- Hide quoted
>text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> Now you're trying to tell us that Russia has NO shipyards and no deep
>> water ports.
>>
>
>sure they have some, but not many.
>leningrad/st pete is one. the black sea ports are now in the ukraine. the
>ukrainians aren't about to let the ruskis back in after just having gotten
>rid of them.
>siberia/kamchatka would need some serious bulding programs to become useful
>as a home for any modern fleets.
>
The lease on the base in the Ukraine lasts until 2017 after which
it is planned to move it to Novorossiysk, which is Russian and on
the Black Sea.

Some study of the politics and geography of the area seems
indicated.


Peter Skelton

[Starshiy]

>
>
Yes, but Russia has still an acces to the Black Sea !!!

[Mike Kanze]

TMO,

Well-put.

Any country with sufficient resources can field a fleet of CVs. Using these CVs effectively is entirely another matter. It required the better part of three decades of ship construction, learning, and doctrine development during the early 20th century before the UK, the US, and Japan were able to prosecute effective large-scale CV operations, and this was back in the days of much simpler technology. The ship construction part is relatively easy when compared with those factors associated with people, especially the development of the requisite "corporate knowledge" and its wise use.

These infrastructure demands are so great that even the US has trouble sustaining a viable and up-to-date CV capability. Russia, China, and India are certainly welcome to try, but it will take, again, decades before they approach any definition of parity with the US.

--
Mike Kanze

"I wrote the story myself. It's all about a girl who lost her reputation but never missed it."

- Mae West


"TMOliver" > wrote in message ...

"Starshiy" > wrote ...
>
>>
>>
> Yes, but Russia has still an acces to the Black Sea !!!

No matter the access to the sea or the number of available deep water ports,
there's more to carrier aviation than a flat deck (and cats and arresting
gear for most technologies)....

First comes the need for several decks, since training and maintaining
aviators requires substantial practice, and a CV on station far from home or
one in the year for regularly required overhauls aren't available for
CARQUALS, an absolute requirement for anybody hoping to become an
operational pilot.

Then omitted from these discussions so far has been the need for a vast
shore establishment and "pipeline" for the training of aviators and the
provision of a/c.

All the extras don't become apparent and are little considered by those who
haven't watched the B&A crane offload down birds alongside the carrier
berths at Mayport, then watch the yellow tugs head off with them in tow
towards the hangar across the way. That's when one suddenly realizes that
dismantling an a/c to make it fit on a flatbed, and then pulling it across
urban Jacksonville out to now defunct NAS Cecil Field for repair was not
feasible or acceptable on grounds of time and cost.

Given the teething problems, the blind alleys and the cumulative lack of
success displayed by the USSR and Russia in attempting to build and operate
anything even close to a successful CV, restarting a long dormant program
will not be easy (and will certainly be slow).

Ready cash (or the lack of it willingly appropriated by civilian leadership)
is a crucial ingredient, but the requisite shore-based facilities - even at
minimal levels - are likely to be slow and as costly to develop as are the
ships and air groups themselves.

TMO

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Nov 19, 2:07 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>
> Oh, I don't doubt they can design and engineer a carrier. The
> Kutnetzov isn't a good starting point, though. Russian design
> preference up to now has been to try to build 'battle group in a
> single hull' ships (like Kutnetzov). This leads to some serious
> compromises in virtually all areas of capability when compared to
> specialized ships.
>
> The first casualty of getting real carrier strike groups needs to be
> that design philosophy.

Indeed. One thing that astonished me when specifications for the
Kuznetsov became available in the West was how little they seemed to
be getting for their tonnage. Kuznetsov is around 65,000 tons
displacement, which is about the same as the Midway class at the time
of their retirement- yet the most optimistic size I've seen quoted for
her airwing is one squadron of Flankers and another of Yak-141s, which
never entered service. Supposedly they were working on a carrier
variant of the Su-25 as well, but she would only have been able to
carry about a half dozen of those. So you end up with a Coral Sea
sized hull that can carry one VF and a few helicopters- sweet. (For
comparison, USS Coral Sea's air wing in 1986 was four squadrons of
Hornets, one of Intruders, plus one each of Hawkeyes, Prowlers, and
helicopters.)

Sure, it's great to say that your carrier also totes heavy
antishipping missiles and SAMs, but what are you going to do with only
one squadron of fighters?

As for the schedule mentioned: even the author of the original article
seems to think they don't have a chance, and he's right. Ever since
the Cold War ended the Russian defense establishment has been notably
bad at distinguishing fantasy from reality in its public
pronouncements, and this appears to be just another episode in that
long and distinguished history.

-JTD

[Bill Kambic]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:50:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>See:
>
>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
>
>Nice plans, but can they be carried out?

Very possibly, yes.

The Russians are swimming in a river of petrodollars and at
$100/barrel they will have the money to do the project.

The expertise? They've got some "in house" and might just be able to
hire the rest. We're not at war with Russia, and maybe not even in
real competition with them. So if a Russian naval attache' offered a
retired USN/USNR officer/enlisted, say, $150,000USD per year for a two
year gig in some aspect of design, construction, or operation of a CV
what might that person say? (These are tax free dollars, by the way.)

And also consider that the USN is not the only operator of CVs. How
might an RN, French Navy, Brazilian Navy, or Argentine Navy type
respond to such an offer?

While this would be a real mountain to climb for the Russian Navy it's
one that could be conquered if enough greenbacks were piled high
enough. Of course there are other "claimants" in Russian society for
the petro-wealth they are generating. Thus it's much more a political
question for them than a technical one.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Nov 20, 10:09 pm, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:50:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >See:
>
> >http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
>
> >Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
>
> Very possibly, yes.
>
> The Russians are swimming in a river of petrodollars and at
> $100/barrel they will have the money to do the project.
>
> The expertise? They've got some "in house" and might just be able to
> hire the rest. We're not at war with Russia, and maybe not even in
> real competition with them. So if a Russian naval attache' offered a
> retired USN/USNR officer/enlisted, say, $150,000USD per year for a two
> year gig in some aspect of design, construction, or operation of a CV
> what might that person say? (These are tax free dollars, by the way.)
>
> And also consider that the USN is not the only operator of CVs. How
> might an RN, French Navy, Brazilian Navy, or Argentine Navy type
> respond to such an offer?
>
> While this would be a real mountain to climb for the Russian Navy it's
> one that could be conquered if enough greenbacks were piled high
> enough. Of course there are other "claimants" in Russian society for
> the petro-wealth they are generating. Thus it's much more a political
> question for them than a technical one.

I believe they got the details of nuclear physics handed to them
gratis. They built better rockets than the US too. A mixture of
ideology and money can indeed work wonders but when push comes to
shove their engineering ability is bloody good.

They are better at keeping secrets too so who knows what they have
brewing while who doesn't know what the US and the Europeans have?

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Mike Kanze wrote:
>
> Any country with sufficient resources can field a fleet of CVs. Using
> these CVs effectively is entirely another matter. It required the better
> part of three decades of ship construction, learning, and doctrine
> development during the early 20th century before the UK, the US, and
> Japan were able to prosecute effective large-scale CV operations, and
> this was back in the days of much simpler technology. The ship
> construction part is relatively easy when compared with those factors
> associated with people, especially the development of the requisite
> "corporate knowledge" and its wise use.
{snip}

The "corporate knowledge" is easy to destroy - just get the state
security people to send all the officers and NCOs to gulags.
This happened in the run up to WW2.

Andrew Swallow

[Bill Kambic]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:25:11 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer
> wrote:

>
>I believe they got the details of nuclear physics handed to them
>gratis. They built better rockets than the US too. A mixture of
>ideology and money can indeed work wonders but when push comes to
>shove their engineering ability is bloody good.

At the top end they can be quite good. But, as a rule, their
maintenance SUX and the old USSR used to build a lot of something
because a lot of it wouldn't work if the "balloon" should ever go up.
They relied very heavily on large cadres of draftees for "grunt work"
and used the equivalent of senior petty officers and warrant officers
to actually fix stuff. If they maintain this model (right out of
Tsarist times) then their success is likely to be limited.
>
>They are better at keeping secrets too so who knows what they have
>brewing while who doesn't know what the US and the Europeans have?

I don't think their "secret keeping" ability is all that red-hot
anymore! ;-)

A successful carrier aviation program is a very expensive, very
intensive thing. It takes a long time to build it up. You can read
all the books about carreir aviation ever written (including CV NATOPS
manuals) and still not know all of the "how to's."

And it's not enough to train pilots and aircrews; all those "colored
shirt" guys need training and experience, too. A flight deck during
flight ops is, perhaps, the most dangerous industrial venue in the
world. When flight ops are secured it's only modestly safer.

Then there's the interesting drills that occur during respots. And
the ever-present threat of "hanger rash."

Choregraphing the "ballet" that every CV does several times a day
during FLTOPS takes a lot of knowledge AND experience.

In my day ('68-'92) the Soviet Navy never did all that well on UNREPS.
Did they ever get any better?

Again, if they want to spend the money to build the ships and planes
and escorts and develop the expertise it CAN be done. I don't know if
20 years is a reasonable window or not. I guess we'll have to just
watch and see what happens!!!

[Weatherlawyer]

On Nov 21, 3:27 am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:25:11 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer
>
> >I believe they got the details of nuclear physics handed to them
> >gratis. They built better rockets than the US too. A mixture of
> >ideology and money can indeed work wonders but when push comes to
> >shove their engineering ability is bloody good.
>
> At the top end they can be quite good. But, as a rule, their
> maintenance SUX and the old USSR used to build a lot of something
> because a lot of it wouldn't work if the "balloon" should ever go up.
> They relied very heavily on large cadres of draftees for "grunt work"
> and used the equivalent of senior petty officers and warrant officers
> to actually fix stuff. If they maintain this model (right out of
> Tsarist times) then their success is likely to be limited.
>
> >They are better at keeping secrets too so who knows what they have
> >brewing while who doesn't know what the US and the Europeans have?
>
> I don't think their "secret keeping" ability is all that red-hot
> anymore! ;-)

No and truth to tell I doubt it was all that good in the first place,
just the logistics of the place. But this group is so US centric it
aught to be called sci.usa.military.naval

And the anti Russian/ Arab/ whoeverelseisn'tmiredinIraqwiththechimp
sentiments seems to come straight from the CIA manual on How to Swift
Boat a non Republican US Politician school of thought.

> A successful carrier aviation program is a very expensive, very
> intensive thing. It takes a long time to build it up. You can read
> all the books about carreir aviation ever written (including CV NATOPS
> manuals) and still not know all of the "how to's."
>
> And it's not enough to train pilots and aircrews; all those "colored
> shirt" guys need training and experience, too. A flight deck during
> flight ops is, perhaps, the most dangerous industrial venue in the
> world. When flight ops are secured it's only modestly safer.
>
> Then there's the interesting drills that occur during respots. And
> the ever-present threat of "hanger rash."
>
> Choregraphing the "ballet" that every CV does several times a day
> during FLTOPS takes a lot of knowledge AND experience.
>
> In my day ('68-'92) the Soviet Navy never did all that well on UNREPS.
> Did they ever get any better?
>
> Again, if they want to spend the money to build the ships and planes
> and escorts and develop the expertise it CAN be done. I don't know if
> 20 years is a reasonable window or not. I guess we'll have to just
> watch and see what happens!!!

Didn't the RN open a school for that sort of thing on land during WW
2? I vaguely remember something but wouldn't know where to look. There
were an hell of a lot of carriers all of a sudden at some point in WW
2 though were there not.

Run by submariners too IIRC, some were. Not very successfully though,
so I suppose you are right.

What is true is that the Russians need to kick start their economy so
that men can afford to get married and women can afford to have
babies.and raise them.

[PaPaPeng]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:54:17 -0800 (PST), Alex Luzhanov
> wrote:

>
>In all seriousness, I doubt that the Russians will make a committed
>attempt to match the United States navy, dollar-for-dollar and carrier-
>for-carrier. I think the Chinese and Iraqi example, of using
>asymmetric warfare, in this case mines, submarines, and cruise
>missiles, or leapfrogging the whole "aircraft carrier" stage using
>UAVs, is more likely and probably more productive. The Russians are
>not stupid enough to waste their money on matching an obstacle that is
>easy to bypass.


My views exactly. A CV group has an effective strike range of under
300 miles. We are talking about carrier based mass attacks, the only
option when attacking a large country with modern defences. At that
range the CV group is very vulnerable to land based mass missile
counter attacks and land based air strikes. That's a lot of very
expensive assets that can sink, and all concentrated in the same small
area of ocean. The monetary and manpower investment for the enemy is
a lot less than the cost of one carrier air group.

[Fred J. McCall]

Bill Kambic > wrote:

:On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:50:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:
:
:>See:
:>
:>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
:>
:>Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
:
:Very possibly, yes.
:
:The Russians are swimming in a river of petrodollars and at
:$100/barrel they will have the money to do the project.
:
:The expertise? They've got some "in house" and might just be able to
:hire the rest. We're not at war with Russia, and maybe not even in
:real competition with them. So if a Russian naval attache' offered a
:retired USN/USNR officer/enlisted, say, $150,000USD per year for a two
:year gig in some aspect of design, construction, or operation of a CV
:what might that person say? (These are tax free dollars, by the way.)
:
:And also consider that the USN is not the only operator of CVs. How
:might an RN, French Navy, Brazilian Navy, or Argentine Navy type
:respond to such an offer?
:
:While this would be a real mountain to climb for the Russian Navy it's
:one that could be conquered if enough greenbacks were piled high
:enough. Of course there are other "claimants" in Russian society for
:the petro-wealth they are generating. Thus it's much more a political
:question for them than a technical one.
:

You can throw all the dollars in the world at the thing and they can't
build and field what they're claiming in the time they're claiming.

No matter how hard you try, 9 women cannot make a baby in a month.
This is essentially what you're saying the Russians can achieve.

They can't.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[tankfixer]

In article <a86ec029-67d2-48c9-916b-4fd3b945b993
@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...> On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > > > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >
> > > > :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> > > > :> See:
> > > > :>
> >
> > :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > :>
> > > > :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
> > > > :>
> > > > :
> > > > :Why not?
> > > > :
> > > > :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
> > > > :
> >
> > > > If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
> > > > aviation organization.
> >
> > > > They don't.
> >
> > > > The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
> > > > carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
> > > > claim they want to.
> >
> > > > What reason is there to believe they can do it?
> >
> > > I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
> >
> > > Thousands of tanks.
> >
> > > Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
> >
> > > Ammo.
> >
> > > and all while under attack.
> >
> > ships require a bit more infrustructure than tanks or submachine guns.
> > any locomotive ot truck factory can make a tank and they can be located
> > anywhere
> > a shipyard has to be in a spot with deep water access.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> 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.....

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> >> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> >> > :> See:
> >> > :>
> >> >
> > :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
> >> > :>
> >> > :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
> >> > :>
> >> > :
> >> > :Why not?
> >> > :
> >> > :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> > If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
> >> > aviation organization.
> >> >
> >> > They don't.
> >> >
> >> > The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
> >> > carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
> >> > claim they want to.
> >> >
> >> > What reason is there to believe they can do it?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
> >>
> >> Thousands of tanks.
> >>
> >> Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
> >>
> >> Ammo.
> >>
> >> and all while under attack.
>
> And quite a bit of that stuff came from the US under Lend-Lease
>


Not to mention the food and steel to feed the workers and furnaces

[tankfixer]

In article <704fd56f-c3d6-4cf4-b5a1-
>, says...
> On Nov 17, 8:38 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >
> > :On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote::> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >
> > :>
> > :> :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote:
> > :> :> See:
> > :> :>
> > :> :>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html
> > :> :>
> > :> :> Nice plans, but can they be carried out?
> > :> :>
> > :> :
> > :> :Why not?
> > :> :
> > :> :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas.
> > :> :
> > :>
> > :> If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
> > :> aviation organization.
> > :>
> > :> They don't.
> > :>
> > :> The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in
> > :> carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians
> > :> claim they want to.
> > :>
> > :> What reason is there to believe they can do it?
> > :>
> > :
> > :I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II.
> > :
> > :Thousands of tanks.
> > :
> > :Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns.
> > :
> > :Ammo.
> > :
> > :and all while under attack.
> > :
> >
> > I guess you don't know the difference between manufacturing bullets
> > and building carrier strike groups.
>
>
> I guess you believe that the Soviets never had any kind of navy and
> now Russia is venturing into naval shipbuilding for the very first
> time EVER!!

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

[tankfixer]

In article <25981310-6d6d-4057-8871-4fc6e6e776c3
@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Nov 19, 12:07 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> > "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:
> >
> > :Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> > :
> > :> I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own
> > :> ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above.
> > :>
> > :> Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than
> > :> you ever will.
> > :>
> > :> Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and
> > :> suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups.
> > :>
> > :> Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment,
> > :> more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything
> > :> associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they
> > :> are going to sustain.
> > :>
> > :> Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very
> > :> few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin
> > :> Villages.
> > :
> > :Dear Fred:
> > :
> > :Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet
> > :Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV
> > :construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and
> > :Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ?
> > :
> >
> > The problem isn't pure construction. However, none of those ships are
> > actually aircraft carriers. They range from helicopter carriers that
> > the USSR quickly discovered weren't big enough for the job (hence only
> > building a pair of Moskvas rather than the 12 originally planned)
> > through a strike cruiser with aviation assets (Kiev, with a handful of
> > very limited fixed wing assets) up through what I would call an
> > aviation-capable strike cruiser (Kutnetzov) with a few dozen
> > relatively capable fixed-wing aircraft.
> >
> > The real issue is that they won't be able to come up with crews and
> > infrastructure on the scale they're talking about even if they can
> > design a real carrier and build them that fast (keeping in mind that
> > they'd also be cranking out escorts and such at the same time).
>
>
>
> Funny how the Allies managed to build literally hundreds of warships
> and thousands of freighters and managed to man them all in 6 short
> years of war.
>

Funny how the Russians didn't......

[Fred J. McCall]

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.


--
"They made hypocrite judgments after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back."

-- "Boom Boom Mancini", Warren Zevon

[Fred J. McCall]

tankfixer > wrote:

:In article <25981310-6d6d-4057-8871-4fc6e6e776c3
>, says...
:> On Nov 19, 12:07 pm, Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:> > "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote:
:> >
:> > :Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
:> > :
:> > :> I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own
:> > :> ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above.
:> > :>
:> > :> Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than
:> > :> you ever will.
:> > :>
:> > :> Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and
:> > :> suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups.
:> > :>
:> > :> Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment,
:> > :> more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything
:> > :> associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they
:> > :> are going to sustain.
:> > :>
:> > :> Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very
:> > :> few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin
:> > :> Villages.
:> > :
:> > :Dear Fred:
:> > :
:> > :Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet
:> > :Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV
:> > :construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and
:> > :Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ?
:> > :
:> >
:> > The problem isn't pure construction. However, none of those ships are
:> > actually aircraft carriers. They range from helicopter carriers that
:> > the USSR quickly discovered weren't big enough for the job (hence only
:> > building a pair of Moskvas rather than the 12 originally planned)
:> > through a strike cruiser with aviation assets (Kiev, with a handful of
:> > very limited fixed wing assets) up through what I would call an
:> > aviation-capable strike cruiser (Kutnetzov) with a few dozen
:> > relatively capable fixed-wing aircraft.
:> >
:> > The real issue is that they won't be able to come up with crews and
:> > infrastructure on the scale they're talking about even if they can
:> > design a real carrier and build them that fast (keeping in mind that
:> > they'd also be cranking out escorts and such at the same time).
:>
:> Funny how the Allies managed to build literally hundreds of warships
:> and thousands of freighters and managed to man them all in 6 short
:> years of war.
:>
:
:Funny how the Russians didn't......
:

Also funny how there is, from 's view (gotta love those
odd Candahoovian names - 'bcpg'), there is apparently no difference
between merchants and cheap escorts (both easy to build and relatively
easy to man) and an entire carrier aviation organization that doesn't
even exist right now.

One more time for our stupid Canadian friend's benefit. *NOBODY*,
including the United States, has ever produced anything like modern
carrier strike groups at the speed Russia claims they're going to
produce them. If nations with long histories of carrier aviation are
unable to do it, what makes him think the Russians will somehow manage
it?


--
"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

[tankfixer]

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.
One of which has a bit of bad karma when it comes to the Russian
Fleet...

Murmansk has a bit of a problem with year round access too.

[Fred J. McCall]

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.

:
:One of which has a bit of bad karma when it comes to the Russian
:Fleet...
:
:Murmansk has a bit of a problem with year round access too.
:

Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
free from what I could 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

[Bill Kambic]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:04:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
>been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
>free from what I could see.

The long term Russian goal has been reliable warm water ports. During
WWII were there not periods where Murmask could not be used due to
ice?

IIRC Vladovostok is mostly ice free, but not strategically well
situated.

Of course, with the Earth getting warmer, maybe Murmask will become a
tourist destination and they'll start homesteading in Siberia! :-)

[Fred J. McCall]

Bill Kambic > wrote:

:On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:04:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>
:>Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
:>been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
:>free from what I could see.
:>
:
:The long term Russian goal has been reliable warm water ports. During
:WWII were there not periods where Murmask could not be used due to
:ice?
:

I don't believe so. In fact, after the disaster with PQ-17, a lot
more convoys were scheduled for the winter because the darkness made
them harder to find and attack.

Convoys went to Murmansk in winter because Archangel was icebound. The
Gulf Stream keeps Murmansk ice free year round.

:
:IIRC Vladovostok is mostly ice free, but not strategically well
:situated.
:

Vladivostok is mostly ice free.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[tankfixer]

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 the Russians didn't think Vladivostok was adequate they wouldn't have
gone to all the trouble of getting Port Arthur.

>
> :
> :One of which has a bit of bad karma when it comes to the Russian
> :Fleet...
> :
> :Murmansk has a bit of a problem with year round access too.
> :
>
> Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
> been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
> free from what I could see.

They have to resort to icebreakers to keep it open year round.

[Fred J. McCall]

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.

:
:If the Russians didn't think Vladivostok was adequate they wouldn't have
:gone to all the trouble of getting Port Arthur.
:

Yeah, so New York must not be an adequate port since we went to all
the trouble to have others.

:
:>
:> :
:> :One of which has a bit of bad karma when it comes to the Russian
:> :Fleet...
:> :
:> :Murmansk has a bit of a problem with year round access too.
:> :
:>
:> Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
:> been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
:> free from what I could see.
:
:They have to resort to icebreakers to keep it open year round.
:

Wrong.

Icebreakers operate out of Murmansk, right enough, but they're not
required to keep Murmansk open.


--
"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

[tankfixer]

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 ?


>
> :
> :If the Russians didn't think Vladivostok was adequate they wouldn't have
> :gone to all the trouble of getting Port Arthur.
> :
>
> Yeah, so New York must not be an adequate port since we went to all
> the trouble to have others.

I see you intend to ignore history and just be silly.


> :> :
> :> :One of which has a bit of bad karma when it comes to the Russian
> :> :Fleet...
> :> :
> :> :Murmansk has a bit of a problem with year round access too.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
> :> been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
> :> free from what I could see.
> :
> :They have to resort to icebreakers to keep it open year round.
> :
>
> Wrong.
>
> Icebreakers operate out of Murmansk, right enough, but they're not
> required to keep Murmansk open.

So it is.
My mistake.

[Fred J. McCall]

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!

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.

:
:>
:> :
:> :If the Russians didn't think Vladivostok was adequate they wouldn't have
:> :gone to all the trouble of getting Port Arthur.
:> :
:>
:> Yeah, so New York must not be an adequate port since we went to all
:> the trouble to have others.
:>
:
:I see you intend to ignore history and just be silly.
:

Just matching you.

:
:> :> :
:> :> :One of which has a bit of bad karma when it comes to the Russian
:> :> :Fleet...
:> :> :
:> :> :Murmansk has a bit of a problem with year round access too.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
:> :> been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
:> :> free from what I could see.
:> :
:> :They have to resort to icebreakers to keep it open year round.
:> :
:>
:> Wrong.
:>
:> Icebreakers operate out of Murmansk, right enough, but they're not
:> required to keep Murmansk open.
:
:So it is.
:My mistake.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Don Ocean]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> 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!
>
> 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.

Russia isn't that trigger happy We used to spin a Tin can within 4,000
yards of their shore lines to check their responses.. And they were
fast. ;-p Same **** in Alaska.. They used to send a wing of fighters
into the Dewline from Siberia in a fast flyover and back to check out
our responses. I don't recall us ever shooting any of them down either.
>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :If the Russians didn't think Vladivostok was adequate they wouldn't have
> :> :gone to all the trouble of getting Port Arthur.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Yeah, so New York must not be an adequate port since we went to all
> :> the trouble to have others.
> :>
> :
> :I see you intend to ignore history and just be silly.
> :
>
> Just matching you.
>
> :
> :> :> :
> :> :> :One of which has a bit of bad karma when it comes to the Russian
> :> :> :Fleet...
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Murmansk has a bit of a problem with year round access too.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
> :> :> been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
> :> :> free from what I could see.
> :> :
> :> :They have to resort to icebreakers to keep it open year round.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Wrong.
> :>
> :> Icebreakers operate out of Murmansk, right enough, but they're not
> :> required to keep Murmansk open.
> :
> :So it is.
> :My mistake.
>

[tankfixer]

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

The Sea of Okhotsk

But then you knew that.

>
> 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....

[Fred J. McCall]

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.

:
:>
:> 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...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Richard Casady]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:04:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
>been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
>free from what I could see.

Doesn't Murmansk benefit from the last of the Gulf Stream?

Casady

[Fred J. McCall]

(Richard Casady) wrote:

:On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:04:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
:>been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
:>free from what I could see.
:
:Doesn't Murmansk benefit from the last of the Gulf Stream?
:

Exactly. The flow breaks up over the top of Scandinavia and Murmansk
gets benefit from that. The water isn't warm, but it isn't frozen.

It's why Murmansk stays open in the winter while Archangel, which is
much further south, ices in.


--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[tankfixer]

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)

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[tankfixer]

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..

[Fred J. McCall]

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

[tankfixer]

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

[george]

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

[Dan[_9_]]

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

[Richard Casady]

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

[george]

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

[Fred J. McCall]

(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

[Richard Casady]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:15:16 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

(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?

No mention of Russia anywhere near my post. The comparison was
Argentina and Saudi Arabia. The Russians do seem willing to sell
anything to anybody. And the Saudis have got the cash. The question of
WTF would the arabs want with a second rate carrier force seems to
have been answered: they don't want it. They maybe need a few boats
with 57mm or three inch. They need a coast guard, is all.

Casady

[Fred J. McCall]

(Richard Casady) wrote:

:On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:15:16 -0700, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
(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?
:
:No mention of Russia anywhere near my post. The comparison was
:Argentina and Saudi Arabia. The Russians do seem willing to sell
:anything to anybody. And the Saudis have got the cash. The question of
:WTF would the arabs want with a second rate carrier force seems to
:have been answered: they don't want it. They maybe need a few boats
:with 57mm or three inch. They need a coast guard, is all.
:

Read the subject line. Then follow the thread back so you know what
the hell is being talked about.


--
"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

[Fred J. McCall]

tankfixer > wrote:

: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 ?
:

There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached directly to the
Russian Pacific Fleet.

Or are you one of those silly people who think all the hardware just
magically evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union?

:
:>
:> :
:> :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..
:

When you're sitting in one place to block a choke point that gets a
lot easier to do. It pretty well limits the volume of ocean you can
be sitting in, which makes finding you (or sanitizing that volume of
ocean) much easier.

:
:> :> :> :> 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
:

Check a map. Look north.

:
:>
:> [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
:

If you don't like people pointing out you're shifting your claims all
over the place and lying, stop shifting your claims all over the place
and stop lying.


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

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
> tankfixer > wrote:
>
> :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 ?
> :
>
> There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached directly to the
> Russian Pacific Fleet.
>
> Or are you one of those silly people who think all the hardware just
> magically evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union?

Didn't evaporate, it just corroded away.

>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :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..
> :
>
> When you're sitting in one place to block a choke point that gets a
> lot easier to do. It pretty well limits the volume of ocean you can
> be sitting in, which makes finding you (or sanitizing that volume of
> ocean) much easier.
>
> :
> :> :> :> :> 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
> :
>
> Check a map. Look north.

Nice place for a some mines....


>
> :
> :>
> :> [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
> :
>
> If you don't like people pointing out you're shifting your claims all
> over the place and lying, stop shifting your claims all over the place
> and stop lying.

I see you like to use old tactic of calling someone a liar when they
refuse to accept your claims and the all mighty truth.

[Fred J. McCall]

tankfixer > wrote:

:In article >,
says...
:> tankfixer > wrote:
:>
:> :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 ?
:> :
:>
:> There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached directly to the
:> Russian Pacific Fleet.
:>
:> Or are you one of those silly people who think all the hardware just
:> magically evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union?
:
:Didn't evaporate, it just corroded away.
:

Not so much. You know airplanes are made out of aluminum, right?

One more time. There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached
directly to the Russian Pacific Fleet.

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :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..
:> :
:>
:> When you're sitting in one place to block a choke point that gets a
:> lot easier to do. It pretty well limits the volume of ocean you can
:> be sitting in, which makes finding you (or sanitizing that volume of
:> ocean) much easier.
:>
:> :
:> :> :> :> :> 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
:> :
:>
:> Check a map. Look north.
:
:Nice place for a some mines....
:

So we see it go from a surface force to subs to mines. Nothing like
shifting those claims, is there?

You think the Russians don't have minesweepers?

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> [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
:> :
:>
:> If you don't like people pointing out you're shifting your claims all
:> over the place and lying, stop shifting your claims all over the place
:> and stop lying.
:
:I see you like to use old tactic of calling someone a liar when they
:refuse to accept your claims and the all mighty truth.
:

I'm not responsible for your myopia. I'm also not responsible for
your lack of veracity. I'm REALLY not responsible for your lack of
intellectual integrity.

I called you a liar because you lied.

Just what did I 'discount', you lying little sack of turds?

Keep shifting and lying. I'll keep calling you a shifty liar.

It only seems appropriate...


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
> tankfixer > wrote:
>
> :In article >,
> says...
> :> tankfixer > wrote:
> :>
> :> :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 ?
> :> :
> :>
> :> There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached directly to the
> :> Russian Pacific Fleet.
> :>
> :> Or are you one of those silly people who think all the hardware just
> :> magically evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union?
> :
> :Didn't evaporate, it just corroded away.
> :
>
> 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.


>
> 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 ?



>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :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..
> :> :
> :>
> :> When you're sitting in one place to block a choke point that gets a
> :> lot easier to do. It pretty well limits the volume of ocean you can
> :> be sitting in, which makes finding you (or sanitizing that volume of
> :> ocean) much easier.
> :>
> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :> 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
> :> :
> :>
> :> Check a map. Look north.
> :
> :Nice place for a some mines....
> :
>
> So we see it go from a surface force to subs to mines. Nothing like
> shifting those claims, is there?

Actually you assumed it would be surface forces my friend. I never
stated they would be.
If you can't deal with a varied threat perhaps you might stick to
something safe like checkers.


>
> 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 ?


>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> [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
> :> :
> :>
> :> If you don't like people pointing out you're shifting your claims all
> :> over the place and lying, stop shifting your claims all over the place
> :> and stop lying.
> :
> :I see you like to use old tactic of calling someone a liar when they
> :refuse to accept your claims and the all mighty truth.
> :
>
> I'm not responsible for your myopia. I'm also not responsible for
> your lack of veracity. I'm REALLY not responsible for your lack of
> intellectual integrity.
>
> I called you a liar because you lied.
>
> Just what did I 'discount', you lying little sack of turds?
>
> Keep shifting and lying. I'll keep calling you a shifty liar.
>
> It only seems appropriate...

I can see why so many folks ignore you around here Fred.

[Fred J. McCall]

tankfixer > wrote:

:In article >,
says...
:> tankfixer > wrote:
:>
:> :In article >,
:> says...
:> :> tankfixer > wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :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 ?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached directly to the
:> :> Russian Pacific Fleet.
:> :>
:> :> Or are you one of those silly people who think all the hardware just
:> :> magically evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union?
:> :
:> :Didn't evaporate, it just corroded away.
:> :
:>
:> 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?

:
:>
:> 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.

You think submarines have AA systems on them, do you? Or are you back
to assuming a surface blocking force? Or are you whirling back to
mines?

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :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..
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> When you're sitting in one place to block a choke point that gets a
:> :> lot easier to do. It pretty well limits the volume of ocean you can
:> :> be sitting in, which makes finding you (or sanitizing that volume of
:> :> ocean) much easier.
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :> :> :> :> 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
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Check a map. Look north.
:> :
:> :Nice place for a some mines....
:> :
:>
:> So we see it go from a surface force to subs to mines. Nothing like
:> shifting those claims, is there?
:
:Actually you assumed it would be surface forces my friend. I never
:stated they would be.
:

So they're going to block them by magic?

:
:If you can't deal with a varied threat perhaps you might stick to
:something safe like checkers.
:

I'd suggest that checkers is too intellectually demanding for you.

:
:>
:> 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.

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> [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
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> If you don't like people pointing out you're shifting your claims all
:> :> over the place and lying, stop shifting your claims all over the place
:> :> and stop lying.
:> :
:> :I see you like to use old tactic of calling someone a liar when they
:> :refuse to accept your claims and the all mighty truth.
:> :
:>
:> I'm not responsible for your myopia. I'm also not responsible for
:> your lack of veracity. I'm REALLY not responsible for your lack of
:> intellectual integrity.
:>
:> I called you a liar because you lied.
:>
:> Just what did I 'discount', you lying little sack of turds?
:>
:> Keep shifting and lying. I'll keep calling you a shifty liar.
:>
:> It only seems appropriate...
:
: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.

Is any of this sounding familiar to you?


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

[Bill Kambic]

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.

>:> 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?

>:> 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).

>: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.

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
of 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.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 10, 7:07 am, 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.
>
> >:> 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?
>
> >:> 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).
>
> >: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.
>
> 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
> of 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.

A warmer Arctic with proven oil reserves of great quantity could be a
major force in reshaping the Russia we know now. They have had 70
years of experience operating the Northern Sea Route and operations in
the cold Arctic.

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Bill Kambic wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:19:44 -0700, Fred J. McCall
[snip]

>> 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.

One big difference between building new and maintenance is the rank of
the person making the decision.

Build new - politician or chief of staff.
Repair - private or able seaman.

This is simply because only the private know that his rifle needs
repairing. Where half the rifles in the regiment are faulty the
private has proof the sergeant is not going to chase him, so it is
easier to keep quiet. Nasty things happen to "trouble makers"
who rock the boat with bad news. The repair order probably
needs the CO's signature so it will take months to arrive and the
CO may have to ask district HQ for more spares.

Andrew Swallow

[tankfixer]

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 >,
> :> :> :> :> 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 ?
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached directly to the
> :> :> Russian Pacific Fleet.
> :> :>
> :> :> Or are you one of those silly people who think all the hardware just
> :> :> magically evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union?
> :> :
> :> :Didn't evaporate, it just corroded away.
> :> :
> :>
> :> 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?

I presume you know about the fleet of submarines left to rot ?
Yes, I think the Russians had to let thier military rot. How long did it
take them to complete the newest submarine ?
11 years or so ? Or was it longer


>
> :
> :>
> :> 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.

Lets see, 4 aviation regiments.
1) 568th Independent Composite Aviation Regiment -
HQ at Mongokhto - Tu-22M3, Tu-142MR/MZ
2) 865th Interceptor Aviation Regiment -
HQ at Yelizovo-Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Airport) - MiG-31;
3) 317th Composite Air Regiment -
HQ at Yelizovo - Tu-142;
4) 71st Independent MIlitary Transport Air Squadron -
HQ at Nikolayevka, Primorskaya - An-12, An-24, An-26;
5) 175th Independent Shipborne Anti-submarine Helicopter Squadron -
HQ at Yelizovo - Ka-27
6) 289th Independent Anti-submarine Air Regiment -
HQ at Nikolayevka - Il-38, Ka-27, Ka-29;

Looks like it's 6, maybe more. But two are not terribly useful at
locating things.

What we don't have is operational rates.

>
> You think submarines have AA systems on them, do you? Or are you back
> to assuming a surface blocking force? Or are you whirling back to
> mines?

Some are reported to have some AA, but you knew that.
I'm curious why you think the Russians would be presented with a one
dimensional threat....



>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :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..
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> When you're sitting in one place to block a choke point that gets a
> :> :> lot easier to do. It pretty well limits the volume of ocean you can
> :> :> be sitting in, which makes finding you (or sanitizing that volume of
> :> :> ocean) much easier.
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :> :> 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
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Check a map. Look north.
> :> :
> :> :Nice place for a some mines....
> :> :
> :>
> :> So we see it go from a surface force to subs to mines. Nothing like
> :> shifting those claims, is there?
> :
> :Actually you assumed it would be surface forces my friend. I never
> :stated they would be.
> :
>
> So they're going to block them by magic?

Could be. who knows what the current code word for Ivy Bell's is.


>
> :
> :If you can't deal with a varied threat perhaps you might stick to
> :something safe like checkers.
> :
>
> I'd suggest that checkers is too intellectually demanding for you.
>
> :
> :>
> :> 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.

You don't like closed spaces, do you Fred. Why would I mine those
straits from the surface when submarines and aircraft can do it ?



>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> [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
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> If you don't like people pointing out you're shifting your claims all
> :> :> over the place and lying, stop shifting your claims all over the place
> :> :> and stop lying.
> :> :
> :> :I see you like to use old tactic of calling someone a liar when they
> :> :refuse to accept your claims and the all mighty truth.
> :> :
> :>
> :> I'm not responsible for your myopia. I'm also not responsible for
> :> your lack of veracity. I'm REALLY not responsible for your lack of
> :> intellectual integrity.
> :>
> :> I called you a liar because you lied.
> :>
> :> Just what did I 'discount', you lying little sack of turds?
> :>
> :> Keep shifting and lying. I'll keep calling you a shifty liar.
> :>
> :> It only seems appropriate...
> :
> :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.
>
> Is any of this sounding familiar to you?

Are those titles to the chapters of your autobiography ?

[Fred J. McCall]

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
:of 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

[Bill Kambic]

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
>:of 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.

[Fred J. McCall]

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
:>:of 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

[mike]

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/src/Yap/Sitepcts/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
**

[Mike Kanze]

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
:>:of 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

[Bill Kambic]

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.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
> 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'.

Which I never said.
I said "corrode"