| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 08/21/2007 9:30:10 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 08/21/2007 6:42:06 PM PDT by SergeiRachmaninov
Vladimir Putin announced ambitious plans to revive Russia's military power and restore its role as the world's leading producer of military aircraft yesterday. Speaking at the opening of the largest airshow in Russia's post-Soviet history, the president said he was determined to make aircraft manufacture a national priority after decades of lagging behind the west.
The remarks follow his decision last week to resume long-range missions by strategic bomber aircraft capable of hitting the US with nuclear weapons. Patrols over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic began last week for the first time since 1992.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
I find all of this very troubling. For youngsters who don't remember, it is no fun, under the best of circumstances, to be in a nuclear Mexican standoff with the Russian bear.
But now, with our other problems in the world, life will be really ugly with a snarling Putin -- rearmed and with something to prove -- rattling his nuclear saber at us as we try to deal with the other threats out there.
I am not sure they are big enough to be a big threat. When they were a real threat they had 400 million people. Now they are down to 150 million or so. ‘Bout the size of Japan.
Putin lives in the past. Long range bombers are what we would call, "a target." 1960's weaponry is not the way to go, Vladamir.
One thing we learned from the Cold War is that Russia doesn’t have the ability to wage war outside its district. The least of our worries should be the Russians. We should be more worried about the countries who buy their stuff.
Oooops. I see that this is another version — different copy — of the same info in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884473/posts
I’ll be happy to go over to other threat for Putin chat if you want to kill this one.
“Russkii nye zapadskii.”
In other words, they only look like Westerners.
I don’t think it is about population. It is about economics. Russia has more money pouring in from gas and oil revenue than they know what to do with. And obviously what they have in mind to do with it is rebuild a nasty nuclear threat to the U.S.A.
"I do not exclude that a new administration in the United States will re-evaluate the current administration's decisions on missile defence," he said, after a meeting in Moscow with the Czech defence minister, Martin Bartak.And he's right. In 2008, our new President Beast will back right down from this. For a price, of course. Under the table, of course. And with oil at $70 a barrel, Putin will pay the price without flinching.
The Russians used to be famous for "big dumb rockets," and they had a lot of them.
The Russians have always favored less sophisticated technology but that in no way means it is not formidable.
And, if this current direction of military buildup is not the best way for them to go, I think you can count on them to make adjustments.
Given the money -- which they now have -- you are badly mistaken if you think the Russians simply lack the intelligence to be formidable. Badly mistaken.
I don't know about that, but they did a pretty good job of driving to Berlin about 60 years ago. In any case, I wouldn't count out their ability to make adjustments...wouldn't bet my life on it, anyway.
But yes, their spreading military hardware around may be a bigger threat than them using it directly.
The 150 m were busy oppressing the other 250m. Now the 150m are not distracted anymore. I don't see your logic.
“Given the money — which they now have — you are badly mistaken if you think the Russians simply lack the intelligence to be formidable. Badly mistaken.”
Problem is, they don’t have the money. They can modernize their nuclear forces, they can develop weaponry to sell to states with more economic capacity to sustain a larger military, but Russia itself cannot create the conventional threat - or remotely so - that it once held.
Which is, incidentally, something I’ve found curious. As the years have passed, the Cold Wars seems to be described increasingly in terms of nuclear war. It’s almost as though the fact that its conventional military was once staggering in scale and capability was of no consequence.
Soviet, er...Russian long range aviation isn't so much aimed at coming over here and dropping nuclear weapons on us. (a-la 1960s deterrence). Their long range aviation is more directed at projecting power against what we use to project power - the US Navy. Their long range bombers have traditionally been about anti-shipping roles.
Now yes, they make inviting targets - if you can get to them. Problem is finding them. It is a big ocean, a big sky. With long range standoff weapons they don't have to get inside our defensive envelop. Throw in decoy raids, tankers and escort fighters, etc. etc. The problem is complex, but solvable.
The real gotcha is that sure, you defeat todays attack on the fleet with interceptors (the F-14s would've been great at this, the -18s...hmmm) and knock down most if not all of their ASMs with defensive missile fire and CIWS... But they'll be back tomorrow, and the next day, and all next week. There are a limited number of defensive SAMs in the fleet, and I'm not even sure we can do unrep on the VLS systems. That might be an alongside evolution.
So really, long range bombers, even big, lumbering, many decades old (did someone say B-52?) bombers are a threat given today's standoff weaponry. For example, a single B-52 can release the same ordnance load as 3 WWII B-18 bombers - that is, the same weight in missiles/bombs as the 3 -18s' bomb loads, and the planes too! So don't discount big aircraft and tremendous carrying capacity for weapons.
It'll be very interesting to see just what kinds of aircraft they choose to develop or modify/extend first. Then the real tell will be how they employ them, train, etc. That'll say a lot about intentions.
I think the guy wants to sell airplanes.
Putting up some ancient bear bombers and trying to show the world, looks whos back eh? Wanna buy some fighter jets and weapons?
"So really, long range bombers, even big, lumbering, many decades old (did someone say B-52?) bombers are a threat given today's standoff weaponry. For example, a single B-52 can release the same ordnance load as 3 WWII B-18 bombers - that is, the same weight in missiles/bombs as the 3 -18s' bomb loads, and the planes too! So don't discount big aircraft and tremendous carrying capacity for weapons."
I assume that you meant the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, not the B-18 Bolo (which was a DC-3 based pre-war light bomber) from Douglas. The B-17 E/G had a typical bomb-load of between 4,000-5,000 lbs. The Boeing B-52H payload is 60,000 lbs. So that makes a B-52 worth around 12-15 WWII B-17s in total bomb load, not just three as you stated.
dvwjr
“These include a new S-400 missile and aircraft interceptor system, similar but better than the US Patriot, and a lethal new supersonic cruise missile, the Meteorit-A.”
Hmmmm.. I wonder if the S-400 is better than the Patriot...
Perhaps you can help me with this correlation. Here you have a naive putin living in the past with retro bombers, and a naive GWB living in the past with the mexican immigration flood. Marilyn Vos Savant said : you can convince a 5 year old of ANYTHING, and a 95 year old of NOTHING. Thus both seem to be 5 year olds whose belief systems were formed long ago in their youth, now in their old age those beliefs systems seem set in stone. Which will suffer the most from their retro-blindness?
Resurgent Russian military.
Budding military alliance with Iran.
Ezekiel 38-39 Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.