No thread on Syria's chemical/gas attack massacre...

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
89,180
Reputation
3,727
Daps
158,770
Reppin
Brooklyn
Modern Russian Navy


TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov".
The dissolution of the Soviet Union led to a severe decline in the Russian Navy. Defense expenditure was severely reduced. Many ships were scrapped or laid up as accommodation ships at naval bases, and the building program was essentially stopped. However Sergey Gorshkov's buildup during the Soviet period had emphasised ships over support facilities, and Gorshkov had also retained ships in service that were beyond their effective lifetimes, so a reduction was due anyway.[14] What made matters worse was the impractical variety of vessels which the Soviet military-industrial complex, with the support of the leadership, forced on the navy - taking modifications into account, the Soviet Navy in the mid-1980s had nearly 250 different ship types.[15] The Kiev class aircraft carrying cruisers and many other ships were prematurely retired, and the incomplete Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier Varyag was eventually sold to the People's Republic of China. Funds were only allocated for the completion of ships ordered prior to the collapse of the USSR, as well as for refits and repairs on fleet ships taken out of service since. However, the construction times for these ships tended to stretch out extensively: in 2003 it was reported that the Akula class SSN Nerpa had been under construction for fifteen years.[16] Storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines in ports such as Murmansk became a significant issue, with the Bellona Foundation reporting details of lowered readiness. Naval bases outside Russia, such as Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, were gradually closed, with the exception of the bases in the Crimea, leased from Ukraine to support the Black Sea Fleet, and the modest technical support base in Tartus, Syria to support ships deployed to the Mediterranean. Naval Aviation declined as well from its height as Soviet Naval Aviation, dropping from an estimated 60,000 personnel with some 1,100 combat aircraft in 1992 to 35,000 personnel with around 270 combat aircraft in 2006.[17] In 2002, out of 584 naval aviation crews only 156 were combat ready, and 77 ready for night flying. Average annual flying time was 21.7 hours, compared to 24 hours in 1999.[18] However since 2002 these figures may have improved[citation needed].

Training and readiness also suffered severely. In 1995 only two missile submarines at a time were being maintained on station, from the Northern and Pacific Fleets.[19] The decline culminated in the loss of the Oscar II class Kursk submarine during the Northern Fleet summer exercise that was intended to back up the publication of a new naval doctrine.[20] The exercise, involving some 30 submarines and surface ships, was to have culminated with the deployment of the Admiral Kuznetsov task group to the Mediterranean.

As of 2006, The Russian Navy has 50 nuclear submarines with only 26 operational compared to 170 vessels in 1991. The Navy plans to reduce the number to 20 submarines, including ten strategic missile submarines and ten multi-purpose (attack) submarines, according to unofficial reports.[21]

s of February 2008, The Russian Navy had 44 nuclear submarines with 24 operational; 19 diesel-electric submarines - 16 operational; and 56 first and second rank surface combatants - 37 operational.[22] Despite this improvement, the November 2008 accident on board the Akula-class attack boat Nerpa during sea trials before lease to India represents a concern for the future.[23]
In 2009, Admiral Popov (Ret.), former commander of the Russian Northern Fleet, said that the Russian Navy will greatly decline in combat capabilities by 2015 if the current rate of new ship construction remains unchanged, due to the retirement of ocean going ships.[24]

In 2012 President Vladimir Putin announced a plan to build 51 modern ships and 24 submarines by 2020.[25] Of the 24 submarines, 16 will be nuclear-powered.[26] The Russian Navy finally accepted its first new Borei class SSBN (Yury Dolgoruky) for service last December 30. A second Borei (Aleksandr Nevsky) is undergoing sea trials and is expected to enter service in the summer of 2013. A third Borei class boat (Vladimir Monomakh) has been launched and is just beginning trials in early 2013, and should be commissioned in 2014.

:heh:
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
89,180
Reputation
3,727
Daps
158,770
Reppin
Brooklyn
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Navy tried to maintain Cold War force structures while suffering severely with insufficient maintenance and a lack of funding.[1] However, improvements in the Russian economy over the last decade have seen a significant rise in defence expenditure and an increase in the numbers of ships under construction with a focus on blue-water vessels.[2]

An extensive rearmament program is being implemented since 2011, with the Russian Defense Ministry expected to procure 100 warships by 2020.[3] The purchase of 20 submarines, 35 corvettes and 15 frigates is planned.[4] The nature of the other 30 ships is as yet unknown. The Black Sea Fleet will receive 18 new surface ships and submarines, including Kilo-class submarines, Admiral Gorshkov-class frigates, and Ivan Gren-class landing ships. There are also plans to lay down Project 21631 small missile boats and Steregushchy class corvettes. This state arms program also provides funds for the purchase of two Mistral class assault ships. Furthermore, older vessels such as the Kirov class battlecruisers will also undergo overhauls and modernisation to bring them back into active service after spending over a decade laid up in reserve.
:heh:


In 2005, it was announced that the Russian Navy was planning a class of two to four new aircraft carriers, the production of which could start in 2013–14 for initial service entry in 2017.[5] Jane's said it was not clear whether "this was a funded programme". In mid-2007, the new Navy chief announced plans to reform the country's naval forces and build a blue-water navy with the world's second largest fleet of aircraft carriers, aiming to create 6 aircraft carrier strike groups in the next 20 years.[6]
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated in 2008 that Russia intended to build nuclear aircraft carriers in the next decade. However Russia currently does not have a facility capable of building aircraft carriers. On August 2, 2010, Vladimir Vysotsky stressed their importance: "If, for example, we do not have an aircraft carrier in the North, the combat capability of the Northern Fleet's guided-missile submarines will be reduced to zero after Day One because the submarines' principal adversary is aviation".[7]


Speaking in Saint Petersburg on June 30, 2011, the head of United Shipbuilding Corporation, a Russian state holding company, said his company expected to begin design work for a new carrier in 2016, with a goal of beginning construction in 2018 and having the carrier achieve initial operational capability by 2023.[8] Several months later, on 3 November 2011 the Russian newspaper Izvestiya reported the naval building plan now included (first) the construction of a new shipyard capable of building large hull ships, after which Moscow will build four nuclear-powered aircraft carriers by 2023. The spokesperson said one carrier would be assigned to the Russian Navy's Northern Fleet at Murmansk, and the second would be stationed with the Pacific Fleet at Vladivostok.
[9]



:deadmanny: :deadmanny: :dead: :deadrose:
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
89,180
Reputation
3,727
Daps
158,770
Reppin
Brooklyn
Serious question. Don't you guys find it highly hypocritical that we are up in arms over the use of chemical weapons by one of the factions....i have yet to hear any credible evidence over which faction it was....but the US uses depleted uranium in ordinance across the board? Why are we so jumpy to enter this conflict? I want to know.

it'll destabilize the whole region if it carries on this way. Probably trying to nip in the bud now before it spills across all the borders. Turkey(NATO state/EU Bid), Lebanon( Lebanon :snoop:), Jordan( Stable Ally), Iraq(Iran taking control/Genocide/ Full Scale Civil War), they are all at stake. The Balkans seem ripe for a flare up a well. DU is obviously really bad but they have to use it on hard targets now. It's not nearly as dangerous as gas based chemical weapons especially for civilians.
 
Last edited:

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
89,180
Reputation
3,727
Daps
158,770
Reppin
Brooklyn
Russian or Soviet
While not all of these were reactor accidents, they have a major impact on nuclear marine propulsion and the global politics because they happened to nuclear vessels. Many of these accidents resulted in the sinking of the boat containing nuclear weapons on board, which remain there to this day.[10]

The United States Navy
The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.[5]
 

Allah

Pro
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
529
Reputation
20
Daps
641
Reppin
916
Neither russia nor china is going to war with the usa over syria so comparing their militaries is irrelevant

the best case scenario after us/uk/fr intervention in syria is iraq, the worst case is libya. lets be real, its not about the safety of any citizens, its about destablization and creating a weak central government that is able to be molded to western interests. the weaker the gov, the easier the access to oil fields and other natural resources
 

Consigliere

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
10,581
Reputation
1,836
Daps
37,162
I remain skeptical that Syria is behind the use of checmichal WMD's. There are too many foreign powers that are itching for this conflict for me not to be.
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,591
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
This shyt is soooo funny... America's military industrial corporate complex is pure evil... but Putin and Iran have the worlds best interests at heart? Don't get me wrong, I am totally against Western imperialism, but the Putin dikkriding that has emerged in the past couple years as if he is some kind of counterbalance to the West, some kind of a hero, is fukking insane. He is an a$$hole, plutocrat repressive quasi dictator, and the Russians are MORE reprehensible than America. America's military industrial complex has to at least pretend to be operating in the best interests of the people.
 

MVike28

right around the ACC
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
24,724
Reputation
4,614
Daps
102,296
Reppin
T.O.
@88m3

These dictator :cape: really thought Russia provided a check and balance for the UNITED fukkING STATES.

Reading is mandatory you illiterate revos.

:laff: :laff: :laff: :laff:
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,591
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
When are you people going to read a history book and learn how these things work? NOBODY here has provided evidence to the contrary of the Obama admin's claims...

I am PROBABLY the biggest critic of the Obama admin on this fukking board and all of my criticisms are based on EVIDENCE. If all you have is I DONT THINK Assad would use Chem weapons, then please stop talking and do not quote me.

Bashar as it stands has used chemical weapons against Sunni Muslims in the middle east, what is the outcome now even if NATO doesn't drop the bombs on his head? You think that this dude can remain in power even if he through some miracle defeated the FSA? Are you kidding me? Not only will the Sunni's never stop fighting him, ever, this will bring in even more foreign fighters and eventually they will defeat Assad. If these foreign fighters are teh reason why they defeat Assad, they will most likely be Al-Q types and then what? America will have no say as they allowed Bashar to butcher his own people and Al-Q types ended it. The faster this man is disarmed and brought to justice the better.

Situations like this is literally the reason why the U.N. exists, not just for you to put a fukking dollar in a box every Halloween :snoop:
 

Consigliere

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
10,581
Reputation
1,836
Daps
37,162
This shyt is soooo funny... America's military industrial corporate complex is pure evil... but Putin and Iran have the worlds best interests at heart? Don't get me wrong, I am totally against Western imperialism, but the Putin dikkriding that has emerged in the past couple years as if he is some kind of counterbalance to the West, some kind of a hero, is fukking insane. He is an @sshole, plutocrat repressive quasi dictator, and the Russians are MORE reprehensible than America. America's military industrial complex has to at least pretend to be operating in the best interests of the people.

Why is it about choosing sides, as opposed to thoroughly examining the evidence and acting in a rational manner? Have the UN inspectors finished their investigation and conclusively decided that the Syrian government is responsible for the chemical attacks? If not, what is the rush to military action about? What happens after we step in? Who takes over in the event that the international community forces regime change? Just because the Russians and the Americans line up on opposing sides of an issue, doesnt mean that either of them are necessarily right. We live in a grey world where Americans more often than not are supplying weapons to both sides of a conflict they claim to be resolving.
 
Top