The Russian Fleet is Dying?

[Oldgamer]

I've read some interesting analyses of the Russian Navy, and most indicate that it is dying. For example, as the following article indicates, "A recent analysis by the authoritative Moscow-based weekly, the Independent Military Review (NVO), entitled "BMF RF (Naval Military Fleet of the Russian Federation) on Foreign Warships" states that the Russian Navy is currently in a situation of irreversible collapse."

The purpose of this thread is not to get into an argument of East vs. West, and it is certainly not to provoke our Russophiles on the forum into anger. I knew that the Russian fleet was in bad condition, but "irreversible collapse?"

In another thread, I indicated that Russia spends only about $39 billion on its military. I suspect that a lot of military hardware is rusting away in ports, tank parks, and airfields.

It would be interesting for some input about the Russian military, and its seeming implosion. Also, an analysis of the gift that President Obama gave the Russians, a couple of weeks ago, might be appropriate, also.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArti...px?ARTID=35584

And from Global Security.org:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ssia/intro.htm

One of the sentences in this article really caught my attention: If Russia does not undertake a massive increase in military spending soon, their military will be about as capable as the Pope's Switzers - nice to look at, but no threat to anyone.

If this is all true and accurate, Russia can be pleased that they are a nuclear-armed state. There's a lot of territory out there for the grabbing ...

Please discuss in a civil manner!

[Stavroforos]

I was hoping for the opposite, but I knew it was too good to be true.

Russia has become a regional power more than a global power anywho, I don't think it will decline beyond that point though.

Still, it would be nice to have a counter-balance to American military might in Russia.

[bushbush]

navy is one big expensive to maintain. with the economy right now, i can see america and britain all reduce the size of their navy somewhat.

[MaceMan]

The recession is hurting everyone, of course, but you touched upon nuclear power, which I believe has the most to do with it. In recent years, Russia has shown the tendency to rely more and more on its vast reserves of nuclear warheads rather than personnel to prevent anyone from messing with them. It's all psychological, really.

[Oldgamer]

navy is one big expensive to maintain. with the economy right now, i can see america and britain all reduce the size of their navy somewhat.

I didn't know that the UK could reduce its navy, without changing over to coracles. Sadly, the Royal Navy is in a steep decline. We'll see what happens once the Tories regain power.

@Stavroforos
I honestly don't see why Russia and the United States need to be opposed to one another. In fact, I think that they need each other, in the current global economy.

Consider that if these two nations were united in some sort of military arrangement, the Russians could concentrate their efforts on the rebuilding of their land and air forces to a decent defensive level. The United States provides what? ... simply the most powerful naval force ever to sail the blue waters of the world.

Why do we have to be enemies?

@Maceman
If Russia has no designs on the territories of its neighbors, then they can reduce the size of their military forces to defensive postures, and internal security. Then, their nuclear power gives them the ability to frighten the bejeezus out of anyone who considers attacking them.

[bushbush]

I didn't know that the UK could reduce its navy, without changing over to coracles. Sadly, the Royal Navy is in a steep decline. We'll see what happens once the Tories regain power.

i always thought they should start selling and building ships for china. That will earn them a lot of money and reduce costs of their own ships. China can only buy from the russians for now. What's stopping britain and china to cooperate? I mean u guys are nice enough to give us hongkong back already.

[Stavroforos]

@Stavroforos
I honestly don't see why Russia and the United States need to be opposed to one another. In fact, I think that they need each other, in the current global economy.

Consider that if these two nations were united in some sort of military arrangement, the Russians could concentrate their efforts on the rebuilding of their land and air forces to a decent defensive level. The United States provides what? ... simply the most powerful naval force ever to sail the blue waters of the world.

Why do we have to be enemies?

I don't necessarily mean that Russia should be the enemy of the United States, simply another force to balance the US from becoming the sole global power. I would like to see Russia not as an enemy of the United States, but simply as another global force. Nations today are either with the US and their allies or they're not, it would be good to have another alternative to keep nations within the civilized sphere. Hopefully the EU can rise to a military role and become a third and final alternative.

[Oldgamer]

I don't necessarily mean that Russia should be the enemy of the United States, simply another force to balance the US from becoming the sole global power. I would like to see Russia not as an enemy of the United States, but simply as another global force. Nations today are either with the US and their allies or they're not, it would be good to have another alternative to keep nations within the civilized sphere. Hopefully the EU can rise to a military role and become a third and final alternative.

This is at the heart of the matter, Stav. The United States does not want to be the sole global power. This goes against centuries of world history, I know. But Americans do not now, and never wanted to be an empire.

The EU will never become an alternative to US military power because the EU and NATO are virtually one and the same. And do the EU nations have the will to spend massive amounts of money on the military, when the United States is effectively their shield?

Russians have never been threatened by Americans with subjugation, except perhaps by Georgie Patton.

[MaceMan]

Why do we have to be enemies?

The answer is unfortunate, yet simple: Russia's current regime has been discreetly evoking anti-American sentiment in order to gain popular favor, and it's no secret that the current global recession has given the regime a fantastic excuse to point its finger at the US as the cause of the world's troubles.

There is hope for improvement in relations between the US and the Kremlin, though, since they'll be having a harder time continuing their game plan. They previously disguised their anti-America feelings as anti-Bush feelings, but now we have a competent leader with vast amounts of popular support around the world, and the Russian government can't just go out and say, "America, we hate you and think all Americans are morbidly obese sons of motherless ogres."; it would be political suicide.

[Yorkshireman]

I didn't know that the UK could reduce its navy, without changing over to coracles. Sadly, the Royal Navy is in a steep decline. We'll see what happens once the Tories regain power.

Works just about to start on our 2 biggest airctaft carriers to date, they were delayed for a few months for recosting.

The Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales will be built at Govan in Glasgow and Rosyth in Fife, as well as Portsmouth and Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria.

Measuring more than 300 yards in length, the ships will have a flight deck the size of three football pitches and space for 40 aeroplanes.


They will be similar in size to the QE2 and are more than three times the size of the existing Invincible-class carriers.

Each vessel will have a crew of 1,450 sailors and airmen.
The building of the two aircraft carriers is expected to secure a total of 10,000 jobs across Britain. They are due to come into service in 2014 and 2016.

At first the ships will carry the ageing Harrier jump jet before switching to the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft once it becomes ready

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2239...-carriers.html

[Stavroforos]

Works just about to start on our 2 biggest airctaft carriers to date, they were delayed for a few months for recosting.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2239...-carriers.html

Won't your navy still be outmached by the French?

[Yorkshireman]

Won't your navy still be outmached by the French?

Depends what you mean by outmatched. We've 2 carriers to their one at the moment, I'm not sure if they've a bigger surface fleet. We don't really base our armed forces on what the French have, seeing as we don't go to war against each other very often anymore nor are we likely to.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Works just about to start on our 2 biggest airctaft carriers to date, they were delayed for a few months for recosting.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2239...-carriers.html

These ships will never be built. Mark my words. It's going to be yet another ministry of defence cluster.

Did you know the MOD recently spent 1 billion refurbishing their offices? The damn front doors alone cost several million quid. Meanwhile men die in Afghanistan due to equipment shortages.

[Oldgamer]

Did you know the MOD recently spent 1 billion refurbishing their offices? The damn front doors alone cost several million quid. Meanwhile men die in Afghanistan due to equipment shortages.

Couldn't they get some young seamen, anxious to become rulers of the Queen's Navy, to polish those knobs as bright as can be? One billion is excessive, especially when the UK is still an island, and its defense depends upon sea power (even if that sea power is aircraft carriers).

@Mangalore
During the Cold War, I was absolutely thrilled to see the USSR build its blue-water navy. Not only were the ships beautiful, but they were blasted expensive, and the Russians couldn't match our expenditures. Every guided-missile cruiser that they built was a sitting duck for US subs, and took resources away from Russia's true strength ... it's land power.

By the way, I've a good friend who served aboard a Los Angeles-class attack sub, during the late 1970's. He told me that once they got under a Soviet surface action group numbering more than ten combatants, whose ASW ships were pounding the ocean with active sonar, and dipping sonars from helicopters. They got involved in some sort of live-fire exercise, and were escorted by no less than four attack subs. Not one of these ships ever detected their presence, and his boat picked up valuable intelligence on how the Soviet Navy would fight, if it ever came to it.

In a real shooting war ... forgetting all the nukes, for a second ... the Russian Navy at its height would probably last no more than a week, while the US navy would suffer a relatively low rate of casualties. Today, Russia cannot match the ability of the West to create powerful navies, especially the US. I'm forced to agree with you that they should concentrate on what is most valuable to them ... land forces, with a powerful air force to protect them.

[Yorkshireman]

These ships will never be built. Mark my words. It's going to be yet another ministry of defence cluster

The works already started in some parts. (procurement/cutting of steel)

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued June 30, 2009)

Several national newspapers have reported that 'the plan to build two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is now at risk after it emerged that the bill for the warships has risen by £1bn in the past 12 months'.

The Ministry of Defence took the decision to delay the two future aircraft carriers in December 2008. We did this in order to reprioritise investment to meet current operational priorities and to better align the programme with the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

We acknowledged at the time that there would be a cost increase as a result. We are currently re-costing the programme. The MOD accounts published next month will present an initial estimate and the formal costing will be available later in the year.

The previously announced overall project cost for the procurement of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales was £3.9bn. The MOD has been refining estimates for the cost of deferring the in service dates for the QE Class. Revised costs will be confirmed once we have concluded negotiations with industry and re-approval has been obtained through the normal MOD process.

The QE Class is a well managed project, with a high degree of maturity. The manufacture contracts were signed in July 2008, and since then a raft of sub-contracts has been placed across the country, totalling £700m. (ends)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...er-budget.html

[gaunty14]

navy is one big expensive to maintain. with the economy right now, i can see america and britain all reduce the size of their navy somewhat.

actually us Bits have begun construction of two new aircraft carriers (same size as the USA's rather large carriers)

[Holger Danske]

navy is one big expensive to maintain. with the economy right now, i can see america and britain all reduce the size of their navy somewhat.

There is a huge difference in reducing your fleet by some ships in order to save money (mothballing them), and having your entire structure rusting from within because you cannot fund the upgrade and maintainance of decades of neglect. According to this article Russia will not be able to maintain a Blue-water navy. As for their land and air based branches... Cute, but wastly outnumbered and out-qualified, so nothing the West should worry about. If Russia was ever to pose a conventional threat to Europe then she had to economically bankrupt herself once more, and I doubt the Russians are stupid enough to repeat that.

@Hippo
The USN does not operate Cruisers anymore. They are Destroyers.

[ivan_the_terrible]

It's in dire straits, I knew that.

But why is it irreversilbe?

I mean, worst case scenario: all combat ships are lost. Whats to stop from making new ones (except money, but that isn't limited to the fleet, that's the whole country)?

[Tiberius Tosi]

The Russian navy has been rusting away pretty much since the 80's. It's just too expensive for them to maintain or to build new ships.

As for the comment about the US reducing it's naval output, that is not going to happen. First of all because ships are ordered to be built so far in advance that billions would be lost if we canceled building a ship that is planned to set sail years from now, and military spending is not really being cut all that much as of now.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

What a shame, eh? Allowing the frogs to have more ships than you! Nelson must be spinning in his grave.

To the OP, the only hope for Russia now is their nuclear arsenal and their gas reserves. Beyond that they have almost no geopolitical relevance.