Article

2003-04-05 Caucasus

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by becky 2003-04-05 10:40 am|| || Front Page|| [13 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 They must not have learned any thing after the Kursk disaster. You can't have a viable navy without doing some maintenence on your ships. Sounds like a good time to invest in towing and salvage companies.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-04-05 11:44:21|| 2003-04-05 11:44:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Got to be salvage. I would not give them a tow without cash up front, or some kind of lien from some jurisdiction with enforcement power. Their little pleasure cruise may just that, but I worry about irrational acts. After all, Pooty Poot could have said this to Bush, "Buy our Iraqi bad debts off for so many cents on the dollar. We will make a bunch of public noise about Iraq and the war, but ignore that and give us a piece of the action post war." Instead, they threw their lot in with the AOW and lost big. I would be watching them carefully, like a dog that had its head bonked by a tipping refrigerator. Don't know what it will do.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-04-05 11:56:56|| 2003-04-05 11:56:56|| Front Page Top

#3 They'll probably force the US carrier groups in the region to concentrate on self-defense, thus preventing them from further participation in the actions against the Dear Russian Ally, Saddam.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-04-05 13:14:29|| 2003-04-05 13:14:29|| Front Page Top

#4 Hmmm, Moskva's what we call a helicopter carrier. It carries naval-configured Yak-36s (and not very many of them) the last I heard which are somewhat like the Harriers in that they can land or take off vertically (they usually take off horizontally to provide additional range though). Also the last I heard the Moskva and her sister ships had all been sold and delivered to China.

Either way, the Moskva and a couple of "guard" ships (likely small missile frigates) don;t represent a huge threat to a single US CVBG let alone the 3 we have in the Gulf right now.

The subs would force the US CVBGs to think more about self-defense, but it's unlikely they're not already on guard against threats from submarines and small missile boats already.

Posted by FOTSGreg 2003-04-05 13:47:29|| 2003-04-05 13:47:29|| Front Page Top

#5 Carrier battle groups in the Gulf are already dealing with a 360 degree threat. There is the beligerent called Iran with coast line along the entire eastern side. Secondly, the Russians would have to be suicidal to enter the Gulf and hassle our ships. Our subs would easily tag their subs as they come through the Strait of Hormuz. Finally, their YAk-36 and helo carriers just do not have the kind of fire power that can handle a CVBG and the air power present at Diego Garcia.

Posted by Doug De Bono 2003-04-05 15:15:10|| [www.douglasdebono.com] 2003-04-05 15:15:10|| Front Page Top

#6 Actually the Russian Navy has navalized the MiG29 and the SU27, both far more powerful and capable aircraft than the Yak-36.

On the plus side, the US Navy has decades of experience dealing with carrier to carrier warfare. Russian subs are more of a threat to CVBGs than surface ships. The Akula class is on par with the US Los Angeles class attack subs.

The Moskva is more of a missile platform than a helo carrier. The Russian navy has already deployed a traditional aircraft carrier although I am not certain if it is to be part of this force mix.

Posted by badanov 2003-04-05 15:43:16|| [www.rkka.org] 2003-04-05 15:43:16|| Front Page Top

#7 Now that we have several Iraqi airfields, the airdales aren't really tied to their ships. They can fly to one of those airfields and let the Aegis ships provide cover for a group of carriers. I don't think Russia will do anything but play around the edges - anything else could be disasterous for them. I think this is mainly a "show the flag" voyage, saying, "We can provide force deployment, too". Other than their Akula class subs, I don't think any of their ships are much of a threat any more. We've managed to build a plausible defense against even their latest Sovremeny class cruisers.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-04-05 15:51:54|| 2003-04-05 15:51:54|| Front Page Top

#8 I heard on the news tonight that Putin spoke with Bush and said, something to the effect of, it's not in Russia's interests for the US to lose the war against Iraq. That's a great sign! The worm has turned....or should I say, The Bear has turned on The Worm. Woo Hoo!

Posted by becky 2003-04-05 21:22:59|| 2003-04-05 21:22:59|| Front Page Top

#9 This Moskva is NOT a helicopter carrier. It is a Slava class Missile Cruiser. Assuming that both the crew is technically trained, AND the ship is in a material condition suitable for deployment, exactly how many days underway has that crew had in the last 3 years? There's only so much you can do rusting next to the pier. This should be fun to watch. (Remember Kosova/Serbia when the Russians tried to sortie but had to cancel a week later due to lack of parts/training etc?)

From http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/
Slava/Moskva class multirole cruisers (2+1 ships) (Project 1164)
Displacement: 11,500 tons full load
Crew: 454 + 51 flag
Aviation: Aft helicopter deck and hangar for 1 Ka-25/26/27 series helicopter.
Armament: 16 P-500/SS-N-12 Bazalt/Sandbox SSM, 8 B-303A VLS systems (64 S-300MPU/SA-N-6 Fort/Grumble SAM), 2 Osa-MA SAM systems (40 4K-33/SA-N-4 Gecko SAM), 1 dual 130mm/70cal DP, 6 30 mm AA, 10 21 inch torpedo tubes, 2 RBU-6000 ASW RL

Posted by Dave 2003-04-05 23:27:12|| 2003-04-05 23:27:12|| Front Page Top

01:06 anon1
14:10 Rebecca
10:03 raptor
07:27 raptor
05:37 George
01:23 flash91
01:15 Steve W.
01:06 Steve W.
00:52 Brian
00:51 Old Patriot
00:49 Steve W.
00:39 Steve W.
00:23 Steve W.
00:16 Old Patriot
23:48 Steve W.
23:41 Steve W.
23:27 Dave
23:20 scott
22:57 AmyL
22:51 Steve White
22:22 Steve White
22:03 Rebecca
21:42 (lowercase) matt
21:22 becky