The recent deployment of a the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier task force to the Mediterranean and extensive long-range Russian military aircraft operations since last July indicate an attempt by President Vladimir Putin to demonstrate that the Soviet Union must again be considered a world power. While these activities have taken place in the Eastern Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Western Pacific, they reveal the lack of “depth” of the Russian armed forces.
For example, the Admiral Kuznetsov — actually the Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov — is Russia’s only aircraft carrier. The 59,100-ton ship, completed in 1991, had not deployed to the Mediterranean in four years. While the Russian Navy and government officials consider that the task force’s deployment from the Northern (Arctic) Fleet, where the Admiral Kuznetsov is based, plus two ships from the Black Sea Fleet, the Navy has only some 18 Su-33 Flanker-D shipboard fighters to operate from the carrier. The “flattop” also embarks one or more Su-25 Frogfoot trainers and helicopters. Such an air group pales in comparison to the approximately 70 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters embarked in each of the U.S. Navy’s 11 carriers.
Similarly, long-range flights by Russian aircraft have been “dramatic” — especially when overflying U.S. carriers — but have not demonstrated much military capability. The large four-turboprop Tu-95 Bear — flown by the Russian Air Force as a missile-armed strategic strike aircraft — have made periodic long-range flights since 1999 after a hiatus of such flights for several years. But such flights pose little threat to Western warships, especially if Western carrier– or land-based radar warning aircraft are available. These Bears are updated variants of the Tu-20/95, which first flew in 1955.
The Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-22M Backfire missile-armed strike aircraft have also made these flights. These are newer, turbojet aircraft, which first flew in 1987 and 1974, respectively, and are more of a potential threat although they have less range than the Bear and there are very few Blackjacks in service. The Air Force is estimated by the magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology to have only 16 to 18 operational Tu-160s, and less than a dozen Tu-22Ms. However, the Russian Navy has more than 100 Backfires, and those have been making some of the recent long-range flights.
While those flights have been made primarily for political purposes and, probably, to train air crews in long-range navigation and search, the Western press has been quick to label them provocative. UPI on 12 February declared, “Russia ratcheted up tensions with the United States over the weekend by reportedly having one of its bombers overfly the USS Nimitz off the coast of Japan.”
Both Putin and his hand-picked successor, Dimitri Medvedev, plan to allocate more of the money flowing into Russia from oil and gas sales to military programs, especially to combat aircraft. However, it will be many years — some analysts estimate decades — until the Russian Air Force and Navy will again pose a major threat to U.S. forces — assuming that future administrations continue at least the current level of investment in the U.S. armed forces.
– Norman Polmar
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
My, how the mighty have fallen.
Similar take…
“Rusty Cold Warrior”
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20083322492.asp
“The Russians Are Coming”
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20082243562.asp
Russia/India Soap Opera… It’s a doozy…
“INS Vikramaditya Hits Delay, Cost Increases”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ins-vikramaditya-may-hit-delay-cost-increases-03283/
Good stuff…
“U.S. Army Soldiers Conduct Air Assault In Iraq”
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=50d_1203572260
The last paragraph is the most important part of this piece to me. When are we going to learn that we need to get off of the oil teet? With Russia, Iran, and Venezuela building up their armed forces through oil revenue how can we continue to be so addicted?
If we want to maintain our status in the world as a superpower then we need to be the leaders in alternative sources of energy.
I’m not a tree hugger by any means, but it just makes sense. The current and future terrorists of this planet are making their money off of oil. That is fact. And now Russia is becoming more powerful from this resource.
DC2
With Putin still in a position of power, and Medvedev being the new President, an ally of Putin, its forseeable that the current ramp up of military spending in Russia will continue for the better part of a decade and with the Russians trying to make a profit off military sales worldwide, you could see a turnaround in the Russian Defense industries, a productivity increase not seen since the early and late 80s.
But even with the Bear coming back, they now have to worry about the rising dragon in the east in China, who has the economic power to really push their defensive budgets to the limits.
Natural resources are always one way a country obtains capitol. However, we know that through history the major industrial/technical savvy countries enjoy economic,social and political power prosperity well beyond what their natural resource capabilities tend to be. Natural resources only add to the short term prosperity of a nation typically (Texas being one good example–has had to move on from an oil-based economy as will Saudi, Iran, venezuela etc….in a few hundred years).
That said, having resources for energy production/conversion (like iceland for GeoThermal) that are oil independent are currently not economically favorable or viable (technologically) to just change the needs of the US overnight or for the forseeable near future (20+ years) without some LEAP of technology. Fusion, solar, tidal and geothermal are probably the most promising future technologies. Fission, wind, solar are the most near term. Hydrogen production (to eliminate carbon dependence) seems very attractive, but it is very expensive unless you can harness the ability to transform water into its constituents or long chain hydrocarbons via a process such as photosynthesis as plants do (desalinization, hydrolysis etc…are inefficient even in plants employing chlorophyll).
The point is that htere needs to be a national energy policy based on ECONOMIC and DEFENSE needs. Near term we should emphasize the DEFENSE portion, because only leaps in technology provided in defense R&D and production spending to eliminate DoD dependence on dino products will solve these problems. The fallout will also make the technology available to other nations and help ensure political stability in the US and where scaricty or access to energy is an issue.
Fund a “joint” economic/military focused energy independence R&D office to eliminate the dependence on foreign oil…put up $500B to get it accomplished–and it will be cheaper than the next war that comes along. I have no political agend for any current war, I’m just pointing out that spending now on the future to eliminate any possible conflict when resources start to become scarce becomes economically and politically expedient and attractive. The DoD and NASA have contributed to our national defense capabilities and in turn their technology development has essentially created (to some large %) the economic superpower we are.
Support your military by asking your senator to fund DoD programs in energy independence! Additional fund to the current budget needs ,not re-allocation/reassignment of budgets or appropriations.
Matt
DC2 wrote: “When are we going to learn that we need to get off of the oil teet? With Russia, Iran, and Venezuela building up their armed forces through oil revenue how can we continue to be so addicted?
If we want to maintain our status in the world as a superpower then we need to be the leaders in alternative sources of energy.
I’m not a tree hugger by any means, but it just makes sense. The current and future terrorists of this planet are making their money off of oil. That is fact. And now Russia is becoming more powerful from this resource.”
DC2
The renewed flights of the Russian heavy bombers are merely a demonstration of a restored air component of their strategic nuclear triad. Despite recent works to enable the heavy bombers to carry out non-nuclear strikes, their prime role is to provide a rapidly deployable and survivable counterstrike capability. It is not a secret that rebuilding of the strategic nuclear forces is a priority in allocation of funding and public relations.
After us,I think that the U.K. has the most aircraft carriers,although their capabilities for carrying fixed wing aircraft is about as limited as our LHA/LHDs.
China is supposed to be working on an aircraft carrier,having bought one from the Ukraine.India also has bought one from Russia,in addition to building one in the future to replace the Hermes Carrier they bought from the U.K. in the past.
Even though our aircraft carriers are obviously better than what anybody else has anywhere,both now & in the future,we are shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing our air wings to degrade.
Sure we have Super Hornets,but we need the Joint Strike Fighter AND…..we need to seriously rethink retiring our S-3 Vikings.
What are we to do,allow our technological superiority to whither away? Are we going to wait until attacked & then wave the American flag & have Rosie the Riveter start up our industries again to build up again our military strength that we are currently pissing away?
Going back to the book “Fiasco”,just reading about the mindless arrogance of the OSD during Rumsfeld’s tenure is just so galling.
The mindless “dismissive” arrogance is also so at work here with various individuals talking about how nobody can beat us(today that’s true,but we are seriously pissing that all away).
People talk about how Russia & China are decades away from catching up to us.So what are we supposed to do,wait until they do before we seriously upgrade our weapon systems(besides the F-22 & JSF)? No money has been saved by scrimping on national defense,that money has only been pissed down another hole with absolutely othing to show for it. I’m tired of “kiss ass” naives talking like Paul Wolfowitz(in case nobody gets it,I have no use whatsoever for this total loser & “tool”,neither him or his “buddies” Richard Perle,Donald Rumsfeld,Douglas Feith,Bill Kristol,& Charles Krauthammer,all Neo-Con “Artists”) & dismissing ALL valid threats against our military & nation.
Tell us how you really feel Roy ;-)
Not only is it there only air craft carrier, but they lack the trained pilots to take-off and land on it. How can the person who wrote this article even hint at the idea of Russia being a military threat? Let alone a naval threat!
I do not see any reason to worry about the Russians.
Any military needs the tax and technological base of a strong capitalistic/research market.
We have that in spades, the Russians are still poisoning dissidents….
Just like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, these countries get their money from us (and other first-world nations)by selling oil.
People have said that the Iraq war was all about oil.
Which is true, they pump it out of the ground (with equipment we sold to them or they have nationalized); sell the oil to Europe, developed Asian countries or the US; and then buy advanced weapons from those same countries.
If it was not for oil, Hussein could have killed people all the way to the top; to become the head of his goat herding village….
Russia is only one step better, they can actually make their own weapons.
It just took Stalin killing 30 million people to get there….
I am surprised Putin does not have a “five year program”….
How come nobody is talking about Venezuela “flexing their muscles?” I mean,I don’t take them seriously either,but it would give us a chance to test our F-22s against their Su-27s.Fox News supposedly showed Venezuela moving their AMX-30 tanks(although I swear that they were showing the same tank over & over again in a loop making it seem like a “convoy” of tanks were being moved to the border).
Off-topic,they were interviewing Sec. DHS Michael Chertoff(which means Devil or Son of the Devil) on Fox News.There’s no point in my mentioning this,I just wanted to say that Chertoff’s name means “devil” or “son of the devil.”
Russia is a nation of 140 million people. They have enormous borders. After many years of complete disarray they are getting their military back in order, largely thanks to oil money.
The conclusion being…so what? They are taking care of their interests, and in absolute terms their armed forces aren’t particularly big or threatening to anyone.
The ‘buildup’ appears quite sensible to me and has nothing to do with threatening the US.
I am a layperson for sure.. but if my neighbor makes a habit of standing at our fence with a loaded shotgun pointed in the general direction of my house, time after time, I have to figure that those actions, and my acceptance of them, make it a lot easier for him to some day actually PULL the trigger and shoot me, much to my surprise…
I believe Russia is just conditioning the US Navy, and when the time is right for Russia……it will actually happen. An old bear is a small price to pay for 1 Nimitz class carrier, especially if it assisted China at a strategically important time for them….
Those badly maintained nuclear reactors in the Russian fleet are extremely dangerous and quite scary. The actual weaponry, not so much.
Just my opinion, but I don’t think the Bears are over-flying out naval vessels for a future run at us. I’m guessing the only arms they have on-board are sidearms.
The Russians have always been very good at the raw sciences and I wouldn’t be surprised if they were only running intelligence gathering exercises (i.e. where are all the warm spots and why isn’t there a ship above this one). Is it possible they’re gathering encrypted data to see if they can decrypt it?
Certainly, we need to look to alternative energies for the future. However, I think it is naive to think that we can simply up and stop using oil tomorrow. Yes, pouring $$$ into Russian, Iranian, and Venuzuelan coffers helps fund our enemies’ militarization plans. However, it also benefits our own military and economy.
If we were to begin a massive shift towards an oil alternative, we would dramatically increase our military spending with no commensurate benefit. It’s really a case of shooting ourselves in the foot to try and hurt our enemies in some small way. Our military is currently advancing just as, if not more, rapidly than any of our opponents. Our lead is growing, and will continue to grow as long as we don’t go all touchy-feely and spend our time holding each other’s balls and singing kumbayah. Even with our reliance on oil, we can maintain our lead.
I’m definitely no tree hugger, but I do see the value in moving towards an oil alternative. If it were up to me, I’d build 500 nuclear power plants across the US (as a national security measure, its not about saving sea turtles for me) and mandate that a certain percentage of US oil use came from domestically produced sources. But you can bet that my priority with the DOD would be old-fashioned killing power, not fuel savings. If our boys need to ride around in a 3 mile per gallon armored behemoth to be safe, then fill ‘er up, boys.
But you can bet that my priority with the DOD would be old-fashioned killing power, not fuel savings. If our boys need to ride around in a 3 mile per gallon armored behemoth to be safe, then fill ‘er up, boys.
There was a study done by Rand or one of those types a few years back showing how much money the DoD could save on O&M with more fuel efficient vehicles. It also discussed how much you could reduce the logistics footprint of a maneuver unit that didn’t need to fill up as often. The M1 Abrams gets something like .5 mpg and is an armored monster. Imagine that armored monster getting a whopping 2 mpg and do the math on how many fuel trucks wouldn’t have to be in harms way.
If the US Navy even allows russian bombers to fly over their battle groups, they can’t possibly see the planes as a threat. Why should the rest of us?
To “DarthAmerica”: You wrote: “The Russians can barely put together a Carrier and escorts and send them into the Med. And then only because NATO and the United States allows it.”
Ugh… are we talking about the same Solar System here? Why did 3 U.S. Carrier Groups in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere too cowardly hide their planes under the decks when Chinese military jets simply bumped into a U.S. Navy spy plane on the 1st of April of 2001, when some seaborne Iranian militias kidnapped 15 Royal Navy seamen in on the 23rd of March of 2007 in the Persian Gulf and when two Iranian speedboats threatened to sink a whole U.S. Navy convoy on the 7th of January of 2008 ? (They really did, don’t tell me they didn’t) That’s how I measure the real strength of any Navy!
Anyone still suffering from “U.S.S. Pueblo syndrome”? I guess you have to build bigger aircraft carriers then…
To “Brian”: You wrote:
1) “Yes, pouring $$$ into Russian, Iranian, and Venuzuelan coffers helps fund our enemies’ militarization plans.”
Then don’t buy ANY oil from Russia, Iran and Venezuela! The growing Chinese Economy needs it far more than the U.S.American Economy anyway, and literally fueling (or: Saving all that Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan fuel) for the Chinese Economy couldn’t possibly affect the U.S. Economy, as you know.
2) “Our lead is growing, and will continue to grow as long as we don’t go all touchy-feely and spend our time holding each other’s balls and singing kumbayah.”
For when are the Victory celebrations in Iran and Afghanistan scheduled? Will they happen outside the Green Zone too?
FFB:
1) Exactly. Even if we move totally off of oil tomorrow, that won’t eliminate world demand. We have other things to worry about other than if our need for fuel might benefit some tinpot dictator somewhere.
2) I’m not talking about fighting terrorists who hide amongst the civilian population. Technology doesn’t help with that. I’m talking about engaging another nation in a war.
TB:
Sure, I’d love to reduce our logistical footprint. But it’s purely for the benefit of our soldiers, not to save Sparky the Spotted Seagull. Compromises for fuel efficiency, armor protection, and speed will always have to be made.
To freefallingbomb,
What are you talking about? So your idea would be to start a shooting war with China over that collision? You would have to ask the British Navy what they were going to do about their kidnapped sailors. Keeping in mind that the British Navy is close to irrelevant I’m not sure how they would invade Iran. The US already shot up the Iranian Navy once in the 80′s they were about 5 minutes from getting it again in this last incident. Those speedboats were no threat just like Russian PR flights are no threat. Look up the term “Sound Judgement”. I would put my faith in those naval commanders before you.
Hey,come on you guys.Venezuela is giving us a golden opportunity to use our F-22s.Ol’ Hugo wanting to use his “Sukhois” against Colombia.This whole thing is tailor made for us being able to prove that the F-22 IS THE SHIT.
Russia is just playing games with us.They use surrogates,like Venezuela,to test their weapons against us.I wonder what kind of radar Hugo’s Su-27s have.I’m pretty sure that he has the “monkey model” of Su-27s,you know,the totally shitty versions that Russia sells to other countries?
I feel like Pavlov’s dog.My mouth is salivating over how [well] our F-22s will do against Hugo’s “Sukhois.”
This is how Russia flexes her muscles,through surrogates.
Come on,its on.We’re finally going to see what the F-22 can do.The F-22 is FINALLY going to have action to go with the talk.I’m not mocking the F-22,I just thought that others would feel the same excitement of knowing that the F-22 is FINALLY going weapons hot.
With a shrinking aging population, the highest rates of alcoholism in the world…I dont see Russia as an big threat.
You know Russia India and the West have a common enemy Super China its not just cheap cars they are copying they have reverse engineered practically all soviet era equipment without paying the ruskies a nickle a desparate 1990′s russia had to give them in the 1990s.They say they have a ‘historical claim’ in one of our state and then have started making noises about ‘buying’ large parts of Siberia ala Alaska.
A new alliance US-Russia-India-Japan is needed to hem in this monster.
> It was intentional, it wasn’t the first time
> Chinese interceptors behaved like that and the
> U.S.A. would finally have a motive to go to
> war, for a change.
The thing is we DONT want to go to war over something like that. We didnt want to do it in 2001 with China like we didnt want to go to war with the USSR for the same sort of thing throughout the cold war.
The problem with China is the idiot didnt know what he was doing, either that or he wanted to die.
> A U.S. frigate called “Samuel B. Roberts” was
> also damaged by an Iranian mine, a left-over of
> the 8 years long Iraq-Iran war.
Funny you remember the Samuel B. Roberts, but you dont remeber the US response to it. Operation Praying Mantis. Look it up.
> (I don’t exactly have access to newspapers’ archives).
You got the some of them there internets??? Google, Yahoo?
That might be the shoot up in question.
>1) “So your idea would be to start a shooting >war with China over that collision?”
>It was intentional, it wasn’t the first time >Chinese interceptors behaved like that and the >U.S.A. would finally have a motive to go to war, >for a change.
It would be completely irresponsible to start a war over the actions of a hot-headed fighter pilot. Especially with a nuclear-armed state that is also a major trading partner. Was World War 1 not sufficient to prove the stupidity of wars between great powers over trivial causes?
To “NTV” and “George Skinner”:
Then the U.S.A.’s threshold to go to war – conventional war or not – must have been considerably raised since the days U.S. American and Soviets tanks aimed down each other’s barrels only 15 meters away at “Checkpoint Charlie” or when a single Soviet feighter stubbornly maintaining his course to Cuba would have triggered World War III, even if he was only carrying wheat and tractors. It looks as if nowadays, when China or Iran toasts an occasional U.S. American warplane, military satellite or warship, that isn’t really a reason to get worked up about…
But my initial observation remains afoot: Why don’t the Russians and Chinese provoke each other in that way? How comes that nobody else provokes and threatens their two navies either, not even foreign terrorists (secessionists apart) ? Or do you have doubts that with the current global anti-Americanism any U.S. warship in harbour almost begs to become a target for anyone seeking immediate notoriety as a popular hero?
Why do you call the kuznetsov a “flattop”? Isnt the fact that it has a ramp at the launch end to get the planes in the air make it Not a flattop? I thought U.S. carriers were known as flattops because they Dont have a ramp, and their decks are in fact flat.
> Then the U.S.A.’s threshold to go to war -
> conventional war or not – must have been
> considerably raised since the days U.S.
> American and Soviets tanks aimed down each
> other’s barrels only 15 meters away
> at “Checkpoint Charlie” or when a single Soviet
> feighter stubbornly maintaining his course to
> Cuba would have triggered World War III, even
> if he was only carrying wheat and tractors.
I am not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that our threshold to go to war has risen. Espically given the fact that we didnt go to war with the Soviets or the Chinese at any time in the past 60 years. As I have stated here previuosly the US and the Soviets played all sorts of games of chiken during the cold war, and do to diescretion and restriant no wars where started. During the same time the US dealt with incidents from smaller states as well. The USS liberty, which has already been mentioned. The USS Pueblo incedent and Operation Paul Bunyan where also exercises in restraint. In both cases, a war could have started, but in both cases the US choose not to wage war. It seems to me that the US has maintained a high threshold for over 60 years now.
Lets address this comment form you
“when a single Soviet feighter stubbornly maintaining his course to Cuba would have triggered World War III, even if he was only carrying wheat and tractors.”
There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between two aircraft collidiening while playing cat and mouse, and the inentional dilevery of nuclear warheads into region to further destabalize a situation. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. I suppose you can debate whether Kruschev was justified, but non-the-less the Soviets where trying to ship nuclear weapons to Cuba. I dont know where this “wheat and Tractors” BS comes from. If any brave little steamer was only carrying that, then the Soviets should have allowed them to be inspected. The fact is Kruschev gambled and lost, bad. Why did he lose??? The US Navy. Ironically, the Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the reasons the Soviets expanded their Navy.
> Why don’t the Russians and Chinese provoke each other in that way?
Actually, they have. There was blood spilled over their boder in the late 60′s.
> How comes that nobody else provokes and
> threatens their two navies either,
We tweak them from time to time, and they return the favor. Oh, and their navies dont sail to where the fight is. Has the PLAN actually ever operated in the Persian Gulf? Heck, how often do they make it out of the South and East China sea? The same for the Russians. Its had to provoke them, when they are in protected waters, and tied up in port.
> not even foreign terrorists (secessionists apart)
Why are secessionists excluded. It seems that if they are terrorists, then they are terrorists.
> Or do you have doubts that with the current
> global anti-Americanism any U.S. warship in
> harbour almost begs to become a target for
> anyone seeking immediate notoriety as a popular
> hero?
For sure, their is a lot of anti-Americanism, but part of that is because we are the big dog. The thing is that at the end of the day neither Russia nor China have the ability to project power with thier navies.
To “NTV”:
1) About your first two paragraphs: I agree with you in all the details, but my over-all point was a slightly different one. When I scoffed at the apparent lack of reaction of the mighty fearsome U.S. Navy in relation to the puny stingy Iranian speed-boats’ intrepidness, you and the poster “George Skinner” replied more or less the same thing: That it would be irresponsible to start a full-blown war over one single hot-head’s actions. The reason why I answered back with the Berlin Blockade and the Cuba Crisis was NOT because I rejoiced about the U.S. Armed Forces “not showing the cojones to start a nuclear World War III back then” – or anything similar like that, but only to remind you two that in a nuclear stand-off like in 1948
> When too many million fingers are already
> pulled around their triggers and a single one
> tightens it too much, “military logic” will
> prevail over all international Politics until
> the sinister end… I could really imagine that
> even a single pistol (or tank gun) going off
> accidentally in such hyper-tense moments can
> almost instantaneously lead to World War III:
When I talk about restraint and discretion, I dont mean just at the top, but throughout the entire chain of command. Itys the junior officers and the enlisted men at the tip of the sphere whose actions and inactions speak volumes. They are the ones holding fire and and acting discteatly when needed. It seems then that there is no issue here, and that the results speak for themselfs. NO wars started by itchy trigger fingers,or millions of them as you say. This is not to say that the US is perfect or that other countries havent acted with restraint. The thing is, during the cold war, one side would provoke and prodd, and the other side would stood by and took it. Thats what training is for, during the cold war both sides trained at such a tempo that both sides understood the rules, thus reduceing incidents.
As for the U-2 flights, Thats what happens when “Bomber” LeMay is running things.
> I excluded them from my list of possible
> provocateurs of navies because if THEY commit a
> terrorist attack
Why are you focusing here on navies, when you continue to use non naval examples otherwise?
The thing is a terrorist is a terrorist, the only thing that seperates them is their cause. Some have internall causes, others external. My comments concerning Russian amd Chinese naval activities in the Gulf, and their ability to project power illustrate that part of the reason China and Russia dont have large number of external terrorist enemies is that they dont project power, and thus dont upset people. Make no mistake, as China and Russia push their influnce beyond their borders they will encounter more enimies because of it.
> They haven’t even tried yet. Why do I
> constantly read the SAME PHRASE over and over
> again in all serious global Strategy
> discussions (sometimes I need a break
> from “defensetech”‘s discussion forums too…),
> that the U.S.A. will only consider China to
> pose a significant military threat to
> them “when China develops a large ocean-going Navy”
I dont knw the answer to your question, but I do know that it has nothing to do with this discussion, and that I have certinally not said anything like it. I seems like you have locked your mind into what you think I am saying and going to say.
As for the rest of your diatribe. Theres not much to say, but have fun with your vengence. Oh, and please tell me all about 11/9. I’m sure your scope is 100% true.