• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So Russia is sending its only aircraft carrier to Syria...

A

Art&Science

Senior member
Russia is sending its only (45 year old) air craft carrier and a "supporting fleet" to Syria... I suppose the age isn't necessarily a big deal, I mean, Big E was in service far longer (there cases of 3 generations of sailors serving on big E [grand father, father and son]). Then again, this ship hasn't been in service the entire time - it ran for a while... the cold war ended... it kind broke down, sat for a while... a LONG while... and then Putin spent a bunch of government employees' retirement rubles on fixing it up and here we are.

I just don't understand what the purpose of sending this "fleet" is. The ship was really not overly impressive in 1970, and certainly isn't now. It's similar in size to USN Wasp/Tarawa class amphibious assault ships, but is slower and has a poorer endurance than those ships. Those ships are roughly the size of the WW2 Midway class of USN aircraft carriers... so Russia is sending its 45 year old WW2 sized aircraft carrier and "fleet" to Syria?

Why? They can (and have been) successfully bombing the shit out of Syria from their air bases in Turkmenistan. Is this a show of force? To whom? Let's be clear, Spain told them to fuck off and wouldn't let them refuel the carrier in Spain this week. Yes, SPAIN. Oh, and it can't make the trip without refueling so there's that...

I guess I just don't understand Russia's end game here. What I feel like is, this 45 year old bucket is going to Syria to die. Now, I don't have any proof that will happen, but something tells me this ship isn't going home to Mother Russia.

Just for comparison, the USN currently fields:

10 x Nimitz-class aircraft carriers @ 107K tons each.
8 x Wasp-class amphibious assault ships @ 42K tons each.
1 x America-class amphibious assault ship @ 46K tons.

I mean... SHIT!!! What was that you were saying, Russia?

18ah1era5labtjpg.jpg
 
Yeah I think I mentioned that elsewhere the other day.

Putin really does not have the Russian military up to the old USSR standards to begin with.

It's a bit of a putt putt aircraft carrier.

Spain was pressured from NATO to wave em off 😛
 
Last edited:
MongGrel said:
Yeah I think I mentioned that elsewhere the other day.

Putin really does not have the Russian military up to the old USSR standards to begin with.

It's a bit of a putt putt aircraft carrier.

Spain was pressured from NATO to wave em off 😛
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it just like he's trying to stir up conflict in attempt to start a WW3 or some shit. Though he definitely chose the wrong side(s)....
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Agreed, but it just like he's trying to stir up conflict in attempt to start a WW3 or some shit. Though he definitely chose the wrong side(s)....
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if all this tension magically lessens post-election, regardless of who wins. In the meantime, it's also a good excuse for the U.S. and Russia to point at each other and make the case for needing bigger budgets for military (and cyber) spending.
 
Art&Science said:
Just for comparison, the USN currently fields:

10 x Nimitz-class aircraft carriers @ 107K tons each.
8 x Wasp-class amphibious assault ships @ 42K tons each.
1 x America-class amphibious assault ship @ 46K tons.

I mean... SHIT!!! What was that you were saying, Russia?

18ah1era5labtjpg.jpg
Click to expand...

They could be up even against western and well equipped armies like the UK or France, but they are totaly useless against a nation like Russia who has the means to sink them at a fraction of their cost, currently they have control of the Syrian waters up to 700km distance with their long range anti ship missiles :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt

A few P1000, or even P500, with conventional warheads are enough to sink any aircraft carrier, indeed these kind of missiles questioned the relevancy of multibillion carriers that can be sunk by weapons whose cost is in 100ks $....
 
Abwx said:
They could be up even against western and well equipped armies like the UK or France, but they are totaly useless against a nation like Russia who has the means to sink them at a fraction of their cost, currently they have control of the Syrian waters up to 700km distance with their long range anti ship missiles :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt

A few P1000, or even P500, with conventional warheads are enough to sink any aircraft carrier, indeed these kind of missiles questioned the relevancy of multibillion carriers that can be sunk by weapons whose cost is in 100ks $....
Click to expand...

That is why all US carrier groups have Aegis destroyers and Attack subs etc hanging out with them.

It is not called a Carrier Group for no reason.
 
Dear god there's a lot of money in this photo. Impressive, but expensive.

Art&Science said:
Just for comparison, the USN currently fields:

10 x Nimitz-class aircraft carriers @ 107K tons each.
8 x Wasp-class amphibious assault ships @ 42K tons each.
1 x America-class amphibious assault ship @ 46K tons.

I mean... SHIT!!! What was that you were saying, Russia?

18ah1era5labtjpg.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Abwx said:
They could be up even against western and well equipped armies like the UK or France, but they are totaly useless against a nation like Russia who has the means to sink them at a fraction of their cost, currently they have control of the Syrian waters up to 700km distance with their long range anti ship missiles :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt

A few P1000, or even P500, with conventional warheads are enough to sink any aircraft carrier, indeed these kind of missiles questioned the relevancy of multibillion carriers that can be sunk by weapons whose cost is in 100ks $....
Click to expand...
hahahahahaaaaaaa
 
MongGrel said:
Yeah I think I mentioned that elsewhere the other day.

Putin really does not have the Russian military up to the old USSR standards to begin with.

It's a bit of a putt putt aircraft carrier.

Spain was pressured from NATO to wave em off 😛
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly the point though, he's trotting that out for a couple of reasons. It embarrasses Russia which he hopes will fuel nationalism and a call to upgrade their military. It also shows the disparity of the US and Russia and bolsters his claims of US hypocrisy and bullying. He still gets to talk tough by announcing "Satan II Electric Boogaloo" and thus remind the US about their nukes, but gets to play the victim to all the anti-American sentiment.
 
The Russian move to transfer its only carrier to Syria is not a show of force to NATO. Putin is well aware that his navy, let alone his military, is no match for Western powers. The only thing Russia has that is comparable to Western strength is its nuclear arsenal. The move is to bolster his support at home. Let's be real, honest, and come together here: Putin's Russia is not economically doing so great. In order to bolster the support at home, you have to direct its populace's aggression elsewhere. Putin has, very successfully, created a "foreign enemy" that all Russians can come together on, and those are the "Western-backed jihadists of Syria and Iraq that threaten Russia's interests at home and abroad." Brilliant move, Putin, except that the jihadists are not Western backed. The US has been battling ISIS since long before Russia stepped in to bolster the Assad regime, and supported groups that show its interest in engaging them. Some of these groups have turned tail and taken the equipment to be used against Assad, but the West is not backing Syrian rebels. What's really happening is Sunni and anti-Assad Middle Eastern countries are buying Western weaponry and giving it to the rebels, which looks like we are directly.

It's a mess.

There are also two MAJOR battles going on right now that will have very serious political ramifications in the region depending on the outcome. The Battle of Aleppo will determine Russia's legitimacy as a backing power, and if successful, will show that Russia is a major player and ally in Middle Eastern politics. This is a battle that, politically, Putin cannot afford to lose. The Battle of Mosul will determine the influence of the United States in the region. If successful, it will show that the US is a stable and successful partner as it always has been. If the battle is lost, then political favor will shift the way of Russia. I suspect there may also be a race to Raqqa going on here.

So any show of strength and military umph Russia can send the way of Syria, they will. All eyes are watching.
 
It's not the Russians we need to worry about. It's the crazy Iranians and their flotilla. I think of Iran like that guy who has a knack for getting the bar room brawl started.
 
Kaido said:
Coming soon, Israel vs. the World.

You read it here first!
Click to expand...
I believe that I read that in the old testament book of Daniel around chapter 9.:innocent:

As it pertains to Russia their ballistic submarines will be their greatest mobile threat to the west. If they could just afford to feed their crews instead of forcing the boat captains to seek corporate sponsorship for each cruise to provide decent food then they might be taken more seriously by the west.
 
All Navy's relative to ours, and maybe the UK, make the rest of the world look pathetic. Having a 40+ year old naval ship is pretty common if you're not the USA or UK. Shit, we are even designing about 50% of the UK's next ballistic submarine for them anyway, so they aren't even responsible for most of their modern Navy.

Even when Russia tries to be relevant, it takes them 15 years to design and build what takes us 4. And even when they DO get the thing built, it's already obsolete because technology has advanced beyond what they first designed the ship with.
 
Puffnstuff said:
I believe that I read that in the old testament book of Daniel around chapter 9.:innocent:

As it pertains to Russia their ballistic submarines will be their greatest mobile threat to the west. If they could just afford to feed their crews instead of forcing the boat captains to seek corporate sponsorship for each cruise to provide decent food then they might be taken more seriously by the west.
Click to expand...



Trump has offered, if elected and in the interest of U.S./Russian cooperation, to fully fund the next generation of Russian ballistic missile submarines.

http://heatst.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/putin-trump.jpg?quality=80&strip=info
 
It's not as good as it once was, but it's as good as it was once, as it ever was. Keep that in mind during the upcoming war.
 
Where would China and Russia be today if they didn't have American hardware to slavishly copy? The world wonders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top