Posted on 04/18/2018 9:48:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It's always interesting when two apparently unrelated elements of the political world collide to shed light on a third, also seemingly unrelated element. That's what happened last weekend during the missile strikes against Assad's nerve-gas network.
For the past several months, speculation has been rampant in political and military circles concerning new superweapons developed by the Russian Federation, presumably for use against its Main Enemy, the U.S.
Information on these systems did not emerge by accident or by means of intelligence efforts. It was intentionally released by the Russians themselves, for purposes that would not be immediately evident to anyone unfamiliar with recent Russian (which is to say "Soviet") history.
On March 1st, Vladimir Putin, in a fiery address leading up to the March 18th presidential election, unveiled what he claimed to be a "nuclear-powered cruise missile" capable of staying in the air indefinitely and eluding any form of interception. The announcement was accompanied by footage purporting to show a test of the missile, along with animation of how it could dodge anti-missile defenses. (It's difficult to grasp what these "defenses" are supposed to consist of – in the video, they appear to be balloons popping up out of nowhere in the middle of the Atlantic.)
At the same time, Putin also "announced" (it had "accidently" been revealed earlier in a Russian military documentary) an independently-guided nuclear-armed torpedo drone that could spend months underwater before setting off a 100-megaton warhead in the waters off a port city. The city would then be inundated by a radioactive tsunami that would destroy everything to the suburbs and beyond.
Obviously, a pair of weapons to make Dr. Strangelove get up and dance around the war room. (Putin also announced several other more conventional weapons.)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
And yet, last Friday, the epoch-making Triumf failed to let out so much as a peep as 105 cruise missiles trashed Bashar Assad's chemical warfare plants. Not a single SAM left the rack while the attack was proceeding. (The Syrians did fire over 40 missiles at nothing, but only after the attack was completed. This is standard behavior among Arab armed forces – the Libyans and Iraqis did the same thing.) The Russians claim to have shot down over 70 of the attacking cruise missiles. How do we know this isn't true? First, because the targets were utterly destroyed, and second, because the French were involved. If the Russians had shot down any U.S. missiles at all we would be hearing from Paris that American "missiles de croisière" are useless, and that's why we had to turn to the French, who invented the cruise missile in 1689. (This is scarcely an exaggeration – Emmanuel Macron has gone on record to state that it was he, le président de la France, who persuaded Donald Trump to carry out the strike.)
Russia today is what it always was – a Potemkin village hiding a nation in a state of suspended collapse. The sole thing keeping it up is brutality toward the ordinary Russian and threats against the rest of the world. This works only because the West allows to work – doing favors for the vozhd of the moment for the sake of peace and quiet, throwing our hands up and wailing whenever he shakes a rubber doomsday machine in our direction, and consistently selling the Russian people short. That's the way it was during the communist epoch, and that's the way it is today. It's time we pulled up the curtain on it, the same way we pulled up the curtain on the S-400 last weekend.
...The attack on April 13th went up against a 21st-century Russian superweapon–the S-400 Triumf air-defense system...
BS. Don’t quit your day job.
Scary looking superweapons won’t do jack to fix his Denmark-sized economy.
Sorry to tell you but this article is useless. None of it is based upon reliable intel but speculation through think tanks and other analysts.
Bombast versus bombs.
“...brutality toward the ordinary Russian...”. I have met plenty of ordinary Russians and have yet to meet the first one who has been “brutalized” by Putin. To the contrary most of them believe he is about as good as it gets for Russia and a farsight better than being ruled by the Communist.
RE: None of it is based upon reliable intel but speculation through think tanks and other analysts.
OK, so how does one explain that the Russian S-400 Triumf air-defense system did not work as they warned the USA it would?
Or do we believe that the Russians were IN on this attack ( in other words, it was a Wag the Dog scenario ).
But if it was Wag the Dog, for what reason? To distract from Stormy Daniels?
But why? Why would the UK and France participate in a Wag the Dog scheme?
The economy of Texas is bigger than the economy of Russia, it was reported recently.
Oh, and Texas is still bigger than France.
I think the writer was being sarcastic when he characterized the 400 Triumf air defense system with all of those accolades.
#UraniumGate
“OK, so how does one explain that the Russian S-400 Triumf air-defense system did not work as they warned the USA it would?”
How do we know they used it?
“But why? Why would the UK and France participate in a Wag the Dog scheme?”
Consider that they all had enough intel that they were only 60-70% certain Assad did it. Maybe someone else wanted to start a war between the powers to get him ousted. This was tried before in 2013. Consider how Russia has not responded.
” ... how does one explain that the Russian S-400 Triumf air-defense system did not work as they warned the USA it would?”
I don’t think the S-400 was used against the US missile attack in Syria. And, at $200m per system, I don’t blame the Russians for not exposing that system to our countermeasures.
RE: And, at $200m per system, I don’t blame the Russians for not exposing that system to our countermeasures.
Well, all those warnings by the Russkies that they will shoot down any missiles fired on Syria are baloney then.
See here for one:
https://nypost.com/2018/04/11/russia-warns-any-us-missiles-fired-at-syria-will-be-shot-down/
RE: How do we know they used it?
Well, all those warnings by the Russkies that they will shoot down any missiles fired on Syria are baloney then.
See here for one:
https://nypost.com/2018/04/11/russia-warns-any-us-missiles-fired-at-syria-will-be-shot-down/
To get real assessments of national security policy and the way it works you have to understand what disinformation and how/why saber rattling is done. There is the version the press reports and then there is the truth which is conducted at a need to know basis.
The only reason Putin is still alive is that oil is above $50 a barrel
Putin talks good but he knows the facade of a decent military would collapse if he actually used it against a real decent military. They’ve been announcing programs for ships, tanks, missiles and planes for years and in big quantities, but they rarely if ever deliver. It’s takes them 9 years to build a frigate and despite all the announcements this century, most of their navy is still 30 - 50 years old and in terrible shape.
Rob Wittman the House Chairman for chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. would disagree with your assessment and he is in a better position than you to know for sure. He sent me this from an article he wrote yesterday:
Rob Wittman
April 17, 2018
Over the past few years, China has quietly improved the lethality and survivability of its attack submarines, building nine new nuclear attack submarines with quieter engines that will make Chinese submarines harder to locate and neutralize in a wartime scenario. Not to be outdone, Russia is embarking on its own modernization of its nuclear attack submarines.
But in the United States, our submarine force is shrinking. Currently, the Navy has just 52 attack submarines, far below the 66 the agency said are needed to meet its operational plans. Even worse, the fleet is scheduled to shrink by 20 percent over the next decade. In other words, while our adversaries are investing in a next-generation submarine force, we are letting ours wither. Without additional resources, we risk giving up a critical military advantage under the sea.
Attack submarines fulfill critical missions that lead to the success of our Navy. Our Los Angeles-, Seawolf- and Virginia-class submarines can perform surveillance, seek-and-destroy missions, covert troop insertion, mine and anti-mine operations, and more. They can also be armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles allowing them to fire on long-range, land-based targets.
Russia and China clearly understand the importance of attack submarines. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this year, Adm. Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, one of the nine combatant commands, told Congress that China is actively expanding and upgrading its submarine forces. In addition to improving the submarines already in its inventory, China has embarked on a shipbuilding plan that would put it on track to surpass Russia as the world’s second-largest navy by 2020. Russia is expanding its submarine fleet as well, adding six modernized nuclear attack submarines by 2021. In addition, Russia is modernizing an older class of nuclear attack submarine, those tasked with missions such as attacking our nation’s surface ships and other priority land and sea targets. With these expanding efforts, our strategic competitors continue to make great strides in the undersea domain.
In order to maintain naval superiority, the U.S. must match, or preferably, surpass these adversaries. According to the Navy’s most recent Force Structure Assessment, which studied force levels by each ship class required to deter and defeat peer competitors, the U.S. needs 66 attack submarines to meet Navy operational plans. Unfortunately, our submarine force today stands at only 52. The problem is even worse than it may seem, as Harris and other U.S. combatant commanders, the leaders responsible for executing all military activity in their operational area, are increasingly demanding attack submarines as well.
Operational commanders have repeatedly complained to Congress about limited capacity. Harris, for instance, testified before Congress in 2016, 2017 and 2018 that he gets only half of the submarines he needs to perform his mission. “The numbers are low and getting smaller,” Harris said.
In February, the U.S. Navy released its 30-year shipbuilding plan but, surprisingly, it did not recommend an aggressive build schedule, despite repeated requests from the combatant commanders. Under the current plan, the attack submarine inventory would fall from its current 52 boats in fiscal year 2019 to 42 boats in fiscal year 2028; it wouldn’t reach 66 attack submarines until 2048. With a Navy requirement of 66 attack submarines, an increasing desire from combatant commanders for attack submarines and an expanding near-peer competitors’ output of submarines, this is unacceptable and puts us at a disadvantage in potential future wars. Conflict with near-peer competitors would necessitate an increased workload for the attack submarine fleet, and our U.S. submariners would be met with resistance because of China, Russia and other nations’ investments in their own submarine fleets and technology.
Fortunately, the Navy identified options to speed up this shipbuilding timeline, including an option to extend the service life of certain Los Angeles-class submarines, which would decelerate the downward trend we currently face.
Now, it’s up to Congress to actually fund such a plan. In this year’s National Defense Authorization Act and congressional spending bills, it is imperative that we provide funding for future Virginia-class submarine additions. Yes, we live in a budget-constrained environment. But we also live in an increasingly dangerous world with undersea presence. An unambiguous goal of 66 attack submarines must be the focus of our naval construction efforts until it is achieved or until our competition stops building. The latter is highly unlikely to happen. Let’s get to 66.
Rep. Rob Wittman represents the 1st District of Virginia. He serves on the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, where he is chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
” ...all those warnings by the Russkies that they will shoot down any missiles fired on Syria are baloney then.”
Yes; what good is a missile defense system if it is considered too vunerable to counterattack to deploy?
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.