Russia sends BCGN and DDG to Carribean

[Vympel]

Link

Russia says to send nuclear warship to Caribbean

Conor Sweeney
Reuters North American News Service

Sep 08, 2008 11:11 EST

MOSCOW, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Russia said on Monday it would send a heavily-armed nuclear-powered cruiser to the Caribbean for a joint naval exercise with Venezuela, its first major manoeuvres on the United States' doorstep since the Cold War.

Russian officials denied the mission was linked to a naval standoff with U.S warships in the Black Sea, but it will take place at a time of high tension between Washington and Moscow over the conflict in Georgia.

Washington has played down the significance of the exercise.

Russia has criticised the United States for sending a command ship and two other naval vessels to Georgia, on its southern border, to deliver aid and show support for President Mikheil Saakashvili after Moscow sent troops into Georgia.

Kremlin leader Dmitry Medvedev asked on Saturday how Washington would feel "if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean ... using our navy".

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said on Monday that the naval mission to Venezuela would include the nuclear-powered battle cruiser "Peter the Great", one of the world's largest combat warships.

Moscow's most modern destroyer, the "Admiral Chabanenko", will also steam to the Caribbean, along with other ships, including a fuel tanker, he added.

The naval exercise, to take place in November, will be backed up by an anti-submarine aircraft, based at a Venezuelan airfield, he said.

Russia denied that the move amounted to retaliation against the United States over its action in Georgia.

"We are talking about a planned event not linked with current political circumstances and not in any way connected to events in Georgia," he told a news briefing. The exercises "will in no way be directed against the interests of a third country".

The ships will participate in "joint manoeuvres, practice search and rescue and communications drills," Russian Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said in a statement. He added the exercise had been planned for a year.

HIGH VISIBILITY

The 'Peter the Great' is large and heavily armed with both surface-to-surface and around 500 surface-to-air missiles, said Jon Rosamund, editor of Jane's Navy International, a specialist publication.

"On paper it's an immensely powerful ship," he said. "We are not really sure if this is a show of force or if it poses a viable operational capability at this stage," Rosamund said.

"These ships have far more capability, on paper, than the U.S. destroyers that went to the Black Sea, but it's difficult to compare capacity," Rosamund said. "The Russian navy is keen to be seen on the world stage."

Admiral Eduard Baltin, former commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, said the Caribbean manoeuvres meant "Russia is returning to the stage in its power and international relations which it, regrettably, lost at the end of last century".

"No one loves the weak," Baltin was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency.

But U.S. officials tried play down any concerns.

"We've seen the reports and we'll see how the exercise goes," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

The Pentagon said it was not concerned by the exercise.

"We exercise... all around the globe and have joint exercises with countries all over the world and so do many other nations," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken critic of the United States, said during a visit to Moscow in July that Russian warships or warplanes were welcome to visit.

Chavez is a major arms client of Moscow, saying he needs Russian weaponry to dissuade "the North American empire" from invading his country. (Additional reporting by Dmitry Solovyov in Moscow and Jeremy Pelofsky and Andrew Gray in Washington; writing by Michael Stott and Conor Sweeney; editing by Sami Aboudi)

Source: Reuters North American News Service

The Peter the Great practicing search and rescue? I didn't know Granit SSMs could do that ...

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm confused. I was under the impression they only invaded Georgia because they knew our ground forces and air forces are overstretched by Iraq and Afghanistan, but our navy is doing just fine, and can be used to dominate the seas against the Russians, so why are they trying to challenge us there? Or are my impressions of the situation completely wrong and I should shut up now?

[Teebs]

I'm confused. I was under the impression they only invaded Georgia because they knew our ground forces and air forces are overstretched by Iraq and Afghanistan, but our navy is doing just fine, and can be used to dominate the seas against the Russians, so why are they trying to challenge us there? Or are my impressions of the situation completely wrong and I should shut up now?

They're not going to actually fight so that's not a problem, it's just dick-waving.

[Dominus Atheos]

But it's not very good dick waving. They're waving their tiny needle dick at our foot-long. If they keep it up, we can always go anally rape them.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

But it's not very good dick waving. They're waving their tiny needle dick at our foot-long. If they keep it up, we can always go anally rape them.

And send lots of nuclear tipped missiles in retaliation? Not a very good idea right, Smart guy?

[Dominus Atheos]

That's the point. I'm wondering why the keep posturing when we'll beat them in conventional navel forces, and if things get really bad, it results in nuclear war. It seems like a really bad idea from their point of view. What are they trying to accomplish?

[Siege]

That's the point. I'm wondering why the keep posturing when we'll beat them in conventional navel forces, and if things get really bad, it results in nuclear war. It seems like a really bad idea from their point of view. What are they trying to accomplish?

They're trying to pound into the collective Western awareness that modern day Russia is not the cash-strapped walkover 'who-cares-what-they-think' Russia of the 90's. This Russia has enough cash to give the Georgian army a sound trashing and send nuclear battlecruisers around the world. It's a really not very subtle way of saying "don't fuck with us, because unlike ten years ago these days we'll fuck right back".

[K. A. Pital]

This is simply to show that we can still roam the seas with our Kirovs.

Pathetic... *slaps head* you don't behave that way when your Navy sucks balls and is basically falling apart, with the loss of our only battlegroup AOE and both Black Sea Fleet AORs and the SSV flagships in 2000-2004... We had a Navy with 5 functional carriers and soon-to-have 5 carriers, including 1 more Kuznetsov, 1 nuclear carrier and three of it's sisterships laid down after it. And all that vanished, so now we're left with the Kirovs... not very intimidating.

Putin said Russia needs 6 nuclear CVBGs before 2020 and a blue-water navy. It's up to him to live up to this promise.

[Axis Kast]

They're trying to pound into the collective Western awareness that modern day Russia is not the cash-strapped walkover 'who-cares-what-they-think' Russia of the 90's. This Russia has enough cash to give the Georgian army a sound trashing and send nuclear battlecruisers around the world. It's a really not very subtle way of saying "don't fuck with us, because unlike ten years ago these days we'll fuck right back".

That's definitely the message they hope to send. Whether it's as credible as they would have us believe, we can have our doubts.

Russia had enough conventional military capability and heavy equipment to trounce the much smaller Georgian military. They have enough geopolitical and financial power to outpunch the United States and the People's Republic of China in Central Asia, looks like. And they can irritate us by deploying air and sea assets globally.

This doesn't mean that the Russian military has been properly or aggressively modernized, and, from the Jane's commentary in the article, I think it's clear that their Navy isn't impressing the "right people." Russia doesn't want a "new Cold War." That's a money pit, not a recipe for new greatness. Russia may have selectively improved some of its military capabilities; the rest are still languishing. I think Putin and Medvedev are hopeful either that McCain will overplay his hand and embarrass himself, or that Obama will be what Kennedy wasn't: a weak-willed newbie that finds himself pilloried in the press by a Crazy Ivan.

[K. A. Pital]

Russia had enough conventional military capability and heavy equipment to trounce the much smaller Georgian military.

You should've said "more". More than enough. We can kick any military in the region should we need to, maybe except Ukraine or Belorus, who are basically the same Soviet Army we are facing.

This doesn't mean that the Russian military has been properly or aggressively modernized

Sadly, no. But perhaps our new government will massively modernize the military instead of ordering some puny 2-20 new craft a year for each type of military task.

[Axis Kast]

You should've said "more". More than enough. We can kick any military in the region should we need to, maybe except Ukraine or Belorus, who are basically the same Soviet Army we are facing.

True enough. I'd think the Belorussian military would also be rather small enough not to put up, in the end, a prolonged resistance.

In some sense, the Georgians had decent training -- it was the correlation of forces and the lack of air power that so doomed them.

Sadly, no. But perhaps our new government will massively modernize the military instead of ordering some puny 2-20 new craft a year for each type of military task.

In specific instances. Putin seemed to favor new additions to the Strategic Rocket forces, or what have you, yes. And your defense industry overall will probably continue to benefit from Chinese interest in sales for some time. However, I think Putin and Medvedev know that they won't reap big returns form military modernization. Russia has nothing to defend against, really. Well, not profitably at this point in time.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In specific instances. Putin seemed to favor new additions to the Strategic Rocket forces, or what have you, yes. And your defense industry overall will probably continue to benefit from Chinese interest in sales for some time. However, I think Putin and Medvedev know that they won't reap big returns form military modernization. Russia has nothing to defend against, really. Well, not profitably at this point in time.

History has consistently shown that a lack of a strong military simply invites others to walk you over, unfortunately.

[Vympel]

Pathetic... *slaps head* you don't behave that way when your Navy sucks balls and is basically falling apart, with the loss of our only battlegroup AOE and both Black Sea Fleet AORs and the SSV flagships in 2000-2004... We had a Navy with 5 functional carriers and soon-to-have 5 carriers, including 1 more Kuznetsov, 1 nuclear carrier and three of it's sisterships laid down after it. And all that vanished, so now we're left with the Kirovs... Sad not very intimidating.

Well the four Project 1143 Kiev ships were hardly very intimidating as carriers. Their Yakovlev fighters were never particularly good, and they only really would've become worth a damn if the Yak-141 came into service.

However, the Peter the Great (and Admiral Nakhimov once its extensive modernization is complete and she's back in service) are still one of the most powerful major surface combatants to ever take to the waves. It's too bad Admiral Ushakov is now "ex-" and is slated to be scrapped and Admiral Lazarev is probably heading the same way, but they're huge ships and Russia's too small to operate four ...

Putin said Russia needs 6 nuclear CVBGs before 2020 and a blue-water navy. It's up to him to live up to this promise.

He did? Well it's quite impossible. Russia won't even have one CVBG by 2020. They've got to go back to basics - keep building Project 20380 corvettes ("Small Patrol Ship" in Russian parlance), Project 22350 frigates, a new class of destroyers to replace the Sovremenny and Udaloy class (with AEGIS-type capability) - a new class of nuclear powered cruiser to replace the Slava class, and then a carrier design. Russia's aging fleet can't keep going like it is forever. They can still be effective with good training, but they can't hold against a near-peer.

And that's not even thinking about nuclear and conventional submarines. And missile boats. And landing ships. And so on and so forth.

[K. A. Pital]

Russia has nothing to defend against, really.

I think the attempt to seize a Russian enclave by Georgia and the possibility of a Civil War in Ukraine are minor causes for defense, right?

Belorussian military would also be rather small enough not to put up, in the end, a prolonged resistance. Right?

Their equipment basis, as well as air-defense systems, are far larger than Georgia's. Hell, they have over a thousand relatively modern Soviet tanks.

Well the four Project 1143 Kiev ships were hardly very intimidating as carriers.

There's a naval term called "combat stability". With the 1143, you could provide combat stability of a unit of submarines, for example - while effectively conducting ASW warfare. The Yak-141 was a good plane and it would probably be used if we still had the carriers.

It's too bad Admiral Ushakov is now "ex-" and is slated to be scrapped and Admiral Lazarev is probably heading the same way, but they're huge ships and Russia's too small to operate four ...

Well, Russia isn't too small, and last thing I heard is that Lazarev was going to be re-activated, but who knows.

Russia won't even have one CVBG by 2020.

Why? Out of the total planned naval aquisitions of the USSR, a carrier like Ulyanovsk cost merely several percent. The costs of constructing one are known. As for experience - the Ulyanovsk is basically a scaled-up Kuznetzhov, and the latter is a scaled-up Kiev.

The dock for an over-100,000 ton ship is being readied now in Severodvinsk, and such a dock has zero military purpose except for constructing a carrier. Well, you can also make tankers in it, but...

[Vympel]

History has consistently shown that a lack of a strong military simply invites others to walk you over, unfortunately.

I think Russia's going about things the right way, at the moment. Military modernization is still too slow, but if they focus on getting training, combat doctrine etc right and building up a strong bunch of actual fighting troops, that'll make up for what they lack in widespread technological sophistication, especially with their limited "great power" goals - i.e. deterring an agressor and being able to throw their weight around in their sphere of influence.

The only military units that are anywhere near what the Russians would like them to be at are the Tamanskaya MRD in the Moscow MD (who were the ones who showed off most of the new hotness at the V-Day parade back in May), and the Don TD in the Siberian MD (because they have all the original production T-90 tanks).

[Vympel]

Their equipment basis, as well as air-defense systems, are far larger than Georgia's. Hell, they have over a thousand relatively modern Soviet tanks.

Yeah, but Russia's not going to go to war with Belarus. Relations are generally good and the two military-industrial complexes are intertwined (think MAZ). Within our lifetime it'll probably be re-absorbed by Russia. It's ridiculous that it's a separate country in the first place.

There's a naval term called "combat stability". With the 1143, you could provide combat stability of a unit of submarines, for example - while effectively conducting ASW warfare. The Yak-141 was a good plane and it would probably be used if we still had the carriers.

Yeah, but they were just unaffordable. Russia didn't buy a single new combat aircraft except for the handful of Su-33s in the 1990s, they surely couldn't have worn the cost of completing Yak-141 development and placing enough in service to equip the 1143s.

Well, Russia isn't too small, and last thing I heard is that Lazarev was going to be re-activated, but who knows.

She looks like shit at the moment. Doesn't mean anything of course, I saw an Udaloy in absolutely shocking state, idle up until 2007:-

2000:-



2007:-



But as for "too small", I meant economy wise. Those ships are very expensive to operate.

Why? Out of the total planned naval aquisitions of the USSR, a carrier like Ulyanovsk cost merely several percent. The costs of constructing one are known. As for experience - the Ulyanovsk is basically a scaled-up Kuznetzhov, and the latter is a scaled-up Kiev.

The dock for an over-100,000 ton ship is being readied now in Severodvinsk, and such a dock has zero military purpose except for constructing a carrier. Well, you can also make tankers in it, but...

I'm just thinking in terms of the delays that have plagued the Russian Navy's shipbuilding schedule for a while now. If they set something down for 2020, I simply assume they won't do it on time. If they were to lay it down before say, the end of 2009, maybe ...

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, but Russia's not going to go to war with Belarus. ... It's ridiculous that it's a separate country in the first place.

I know. I live here and travel to Belorus without any visas We are a Union State with them, kinda like the EU. Maybe the Union will grow stronger, now that Abkhazia and S.Ossetia could join it (not my idea, frankly, one Belorussian ambassador suggested it).

Yeah, but they were just unaffordable.

You're right, given the kind of stuff we went through just a few years ago.

Sadly, they weren't even put on conservation, like some machines were. I hope India doesn't pay up and the "Gorshkov" is re-enlisted as a CVS.

And you're right of course that our schedule looks like shit. Frankly, our Navy does too. We had a dedicated squadron of ELINT and Command ships operating in all three Fleets and now all of them are scrap, just as all AOE and AOR ships we ever had are, so I guess we're back to 1960.

We could start by building a helicarrier though. Something like the "Ivan Tarawa" ("Kherson", Pr.11780 universal landing ship) or the "Khalzan" helicarrier. They would be cheaper than carriers and provide good anti-submarine warfare platforms, as well as command centers for CG groups. Hell, they could carry AEW&C helicopters until we get something like a normal carrier with a future version of Yak-44s.

[Coyote]

But how are things like military pay and benefits doing, as well as training, quarters, food, and simple infrastructure in Russia these days? Russia's economy has grown, and strong oil and gas prices certainly have 'fueled' a boom in military weapons and programs, procurements, etc-- but has support for both logistics, training and living standards expanded as well?

Let's face it, if all the money is just being funnelled into shiny new toys, but none is being poured into the means to support those toys, then this is just a patch that in a few years will provide more rusting hulks for future curio seekers to ponder over.

[Axis Kast]

History has consistently shown that a lack of a strong military simply invites others to walk you over, unfortunately.

Yes, it has.

But none of Russia's neighbors is even remotely capable of posing a military challenge except China.

Russia can scrape along with selective improvement of specific capabilities, not general force modernization, which is too expensive as compared to other projects of greater import to the current government.

I think the attempt to seize a Russian enclave by Georgia and the possibility of a Civil War in Ukraine are minor causes for defense, right?

Not everyone agrees with you that S. Ossetia was a Russian enclave in the eyes of applicable international law.

Furthermore, Russia's military was obviously up to the challenge of seeing to its interests in Georgia, sans modernization.

Russia would still not have much difficulty interjecting itself on behalf of one side even now.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

History has consistently shown that a lack of a strong military simply invites others to walk you over, unfortunately.

Yes, it has.

But none of Russia's neighbors is even remotely capable of posing a military challenge except China.

Russia can scrape along with selective improvement of specific capabilities, not general force modernization, which is too expensive as compared to other projects of greater import to the current government.

The United States has more or less tried to push through its influence right into Russia's door step. That is itself cause enough to put up strong defence.

As for International law, there has been precedent in which a state was oppressed sufficiently to grant it statehood. The case in point, would be E. Timor, via referendum, no less.

[Surlethe]

In specific instances. Putin seemed to favor new additions to the Strategic Rocket forces, or what have you, yes. And your defense industry overall will probably continue to benefit from Chinese interest in sales for some time. However, I think Putin and Medvedev know that they won't reap big returns form military modernization. Russia has nothing to defend against, really. Well, not profitably at this point in time.

History has consistently shown that a lack of a strong military simply invites others to walk you over, unfortunately.

Russia is still a nuclear power, right? As long as they have that umbrella, they can modernize as slowly as they'd like without major interference from other world powers. That's leaving aside the fact that they're a major energy exporter, so anyone who tried to seriously mess with them would be frowned upon by those who rely on Russian energy, like Europe.

[K. A. Pital]

But how are things like military pay and benefits doing, as well as training, quarters, food, and simple infrastructure in Russia these days?

A lot better than they used to be in the 1990s, but still far from the military's old days. Military servicemen lament the lack of free housing (the state always promised to restore that tradition since Putin came to power, but never did manage to fully execute the Housing for Soldiers programme...), as well as low pay rates.

Social security of military jobs, however, is growing and an increasing number of people feel the military is becoming a more welcoming place for servicemen.

Renovation of barracks and other buildings which are 20 years old or older is being done, but at a very slow rate sadly.

Furthermore, Russia's military was obviously up to the challenge of seeing to its interests in Georgia

Since our potential enemy is NATO-armed and NATO-trained more often than not these days... I think we need to care about modernization and keeping up to date.

Hoping that the same level of action as in Georgia would work elsewhere (a dispute or even open war with China or Ukraine) is not wise.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Russia is still a nuclear power, right? As long as they have that umbrella, they can modernize as slowly as they'd like without major interference from other world powers. That's leaving aside the fact that they're a major energy exporter, so anyone who tried to seriously mess with them would be frowned upon by those who rely on Russian energy, like Europe.

A good portion of Russia's nuclear arsenal is in the form of ICBMs, which the United States is to some extent, making sure it is well defended against that.

I would point out that the current problems originated from 10 years ago, when Russia was anything but strong, but chaotic and fractured. Not to mention an economic crises in 1997. A lot of what you mentioned, is fairly recent and by no means permanent. They don't have much time and this is perhaps a brief breathing space.

[K. A. Pital]

A good portion of Russia's nuclear arsenal is in the form of ICBMs

Indeed.

This is also where many problems take root. The Nuclear Triade needs SLBMs and bombers.

Renewing bombers without the air-defense network will not improve their survivability.

Renewing submarines in a lack of surface navy will not improve their survivability.

[Surlethe]

Russia is still a nuclear power, right? As long as they have that umbrella, they can modernize as slowly as they'd like without major interference from other world powers. That's leaving aside the fact that they're a major energy exporter, so anyone who tried to seriously mess with them would be frowned upon by those who rely on Russian energy, like Europe.

A good portion of Russia's nuclear arsenal is in the form of ICBMs, which the United States is to some extent, making sure it is well defended against that.

That's true, but they can still target those missiles at other rivals; they are not a perfect shield, as they were during the Cold War when MAD doctrine was in place, but they provide some measure of unconventional protection. If Russia lacked a military completely and relied entirely on their nuclear deterrent, other nations might push it around, but nobody would dare become too large a threat.

I would point out that the current problems originated from 10 years ago, when Russia was anything but strong, but chaotic and fractured. Not to mention an economic crises in 1997. A lot of what you mentioned, is fairly recent and by no means permanent. They don't have much time and this is perhaps a brief breathing space.

I think it's premature to say that this is a brief respite from chaos and economic turmoil. As long as Russian exports stay strong, energy prices stay high, and the government manages the country relatively wisely, there's every reason to conclude that the current prosperity will not diminish greatly in the near future. As the rest of the world starts to circle the drain, they may be adversely affected, but will still remain relatively well-to-do as a whole country.