Russia to boost Black Sea Fleet with 80 new warships and spare naval base
47 replies, posted
[IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/23/1411483871070_wps_30_epa04413362_Russian_Presi.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE](Reuters) - Russia will increase its Black Sea fleet with more than 80 new warships by 2020 and will complete a second naval base for the fleet near the city of Novorossiysk by 2016, its commander said on Tuesday.
In comments made to President Vladimir Putin as he visited the port city, Vice Admiral Alexander Vitko said a second Black Sea base was needed in addition to the main base on the Crimea peninsula annexed from Ukraine because of NATO expansion.
"Eighty ships and other vessels are expected to arrive (in Novorossiysk) before 2020. The Black Sea Fleet will have 206 ships and vessels by 2020," Vitko told Putin.
"NATO ships are constantly present in the Black Sea and it plans to establish a naval base in the Black Sea," he added.
NATO has regularly conducted naval exercises in the Black Sea, especially since Russia annexed Crimea, populated mainly by ethnic Russians, in March partly from fear that Ukraine's new pro-Western authorities might try to join the Atlantic alliance.
A NATO official told Reuters in Brussels there were no alliance plans to build a Black Sea base but said it already had access to the resources of member states in the region.
"Our Black Sea allies have ports that we use from time to time but (there are) no plans to build a "Nato" base as suggested," the official said.
Three NATO members have a Black Sea coastline - Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.
The former Soviet republic of Georgia, on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, has sought membership in the past but like Ukraine is very unlikely to be admitted any time soon due to Moscow's fierce opposition to NATO's further eastern expansion.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/23/us-russia-navy-ships-idUSKCN0HI16K20140923[/url]
huh so all that about "securing a warm water port" was a lie, they already had like 2 warm water ports, those greedy bastards
[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]
[quote]
In comments made to President Vladimir Putin as he visited the port city, Vice Admiral Alexander Vitko said a second Black Sea base was needed in addition to the main base on the Crimea peninsula [B]annexed from Ukraine because of NATO expansion.[/B][/quote]
wow just rewrite the history there, NATO didn't even have anything to do with Crimea
[QUOTE=Sableye;46061407]huh so all that about "securing a warm water port" was a lie, they already had like 2 warm water ports, those greedy bastards
[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]
wow just rewrite the history there, NATO didn't even have anything to do with Crimea[/QUOTE]
Russia never claimed they were trying to obtain a warm water port. That was invented by idiots who have never seen a map before.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46061440]Russia never claimed they were trying to obtain a warm water port. That was invented by idiots who have never seen a map before.[/QUOTE]
Russia obtained Crimea because it obtained it.
ya but look at what else i posted there, they litterally blamed their anexation of crimea on nato for existing
80 ships in 6 years is a bit optimistic imo
when it takes a good chunk of the year to roll out one
Unless they mean move them, but I didn't think the Russian navy was that big
[QUOTE=Sableye;46061460]ya but look at what else i posted there, they litterally blamed their anexation of crimea on nato for existing[/QUOTE]
Nothing in that post is worth looking at.
[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Saxon;46061493]80 ships in 6 years is a bit optimistic imo
when it takes a good chunk of the year to roll out one[/QUOTE]
Not really, they just laid down 4 submarines in Severodvinsk.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46061495]Not really, they just laid down 4 submarines in Severodvinsk.[/QUOTE]
It takes years to make a ship. It usually takes one year to go from laying down to launching, then another 2-3 years to complete the ship (based on the time it took to make every other ship in the Black Sea Fleet). And that's for medium-sized cruisers or frigates. A modern carrier takes 6-8 years to make (based on the Ford-class, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the Admiral Kuznetsov).
And they only have so much shipyard space - they can't build all 80 at once. In all honesty, I'd say 18 is a far more reasonable figure than 80.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;46061607]
And they only have so much shipyard space - they can't build all 80 at once. In all honesty, I'd say 18 is a far more reasonable figure than 80.[/QUOTE]
Is this based on your professional assessment of Russia's shipbuilding capacity? "80 warships" doesn't mean purely frigates, subs and carriers. It also means supply ships etc.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46061650]Is this based on your professional assessment of Russia's shipbuilding capacity? "80 warships" doesn't mean purely frigates, subs and carriers. It also means supply ships etc.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they're gonna try and scare NATO by filling up the Black Sea with logistic vessels.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46061650]Is this based on your professional assessment of Russia's shipbuilding capacity?[/QUOTE]
I'm going to say "yes", just because I'm sure your response is going to be [I]hilarious[/I].
Where is Russia going to get these 80 new ships in 6 years. Iran?
[t]http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/h_50415417-725x476.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Sableye;46061407]
[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]
wow just rewrite the history there, NATO didn't even have anything to do with Crimea[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that Russia fears a militarized NATO as much as we fear a militarized Russia.
When Ukraine, a buffer state between the two, wanted closer ties to NATO, Russia perceived that as a threat, especially since the Ukrainian base was right on the Russian border.
Think of the Cuba-Soviet issue. The people there wanted to be with the Soviets, US perceived that as a threat since it was so close, so we acted on them.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;46061607]It takes years to make a ship. It usually takes one year to go from laying down to launching, then another 2-3 years to complete the ship (based on the time it took to make every other ship in the Black Sea Fleet). And that's for medium-sized cruisers or frigates. A modern carrier takes 6-8 years to make (based on the Ford-class, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, and the Admiral Kuznetsov).
And they only have so much shipyard space - they can't build all 80 at once. In all honesty, I'd say 18 is a far more reasonable figure than 80.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty easy to shit-out ships actually. If you have financial backing and deadlines to make, it could be done by 2020 or 2022.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;46062194]Keep in mind that Russia fears a militarized NATO as much as we fear a militarized Russia.
When Ukraine, a buffer state between the two, wanted closer ties to NATO, Russia perceived that as a threat, especially since the Ukrainian base was right on the Russian border.
Think of the Cuba-Soviet issue. The people there wanted to be with the Soviets, US perceived that as a threat since it was so close, so we acted on them.[/QUOTE]
Except there was no threat. Russia (putin and ultranationalists really) has now created a threat by being an asshole. Before NATO was largely just appreciating new possibilities for trade and member nations.NATO nations have close political ties.
It wasn't missiles in Turkey, it was just another ally to be had.
At the end of the day if we want to destroy Russia, it will happen and the proximity of NATO troops to their border will be irrelevant. ICBM's care little about geography.
[QUOTE=GunFox;46062593]At the end of the day if we want to destroy Russia, it will happen and the proximity of NATO troops to their border will be irrelevant. ICBM's care little about geography.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I can't think of many members of NATO that truly want to "destroy" Russia. Control Russia, liberate Russia, split Russia into multiple nations, perhaps, but not truly destroy.
Secondly, who in their right mind would launch an ICBM at Russia, knowing the consequences of such an action?
[QUOTE=Rubs10;46062194]Keep in mind that Russia fears a militarized NATO as much as we fear a militarized Russia.
When Ukraine, a buffer state between the two, wanted closer ties to NATO, Russia perceived that as a threat, especially since the Ukrainian base was right on the Russian border.
Think of the Cuba-Soviet issue. The people there wanted to be with the Soviets, US perceived that as a threat since it was so close, so we acted on them.[/QUOTE]
Why should it matter what Russia wants if Ukraine itself expressed the desire to strengthen ties with Europe? Russia wanting a buffer zone is one thing, go ahead and make one (out of your own territory), but Russia acting and brutishly manipulating other sovereign nations to BE this buffer zone for them is ridiculous. If, hypothetically, Ukraine managed to join the EU and NATO before any of this could've happened, then tough titties for Russia and their buffer zone wet dreams - a sovereign nation making a sovereign decision for itself and it's people is not NATO violently expanding and encroaching on the Motherland. It only becomes this, and even then in Putin's head, when you start screaming bloody murder and annexing parts of other nations, claiming it as such. Think Streisand effect on a global politics scale.
All Putin's propensity to powerplay politics has achieved is the very thing you claim Russia fears - a militarized NATO. These very events directly contributed to the European armed forces setting in stone new steps to solidify our military capabilities in case of, you guessed it, Russian incursions! Gg wp.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;46062721]Why should it matter what Russia wants if Ukraine itself expressed the desire to strengthen ties with Europe? Russia wanting a buffer zone is one thing, go ahead and make one (out of your own territory)[/QUOTE]
I can't think of any country in the world that would simply get a chunk of it own soil and make a buffer zone within with neutral economical policy and special customs for rival to it's own production flow.
Also, regarding "achieving" of militarised NATO, i'd like to remind you that there was a huge and long lasting arguement regarding NATO placing it rocket bases in Baltic countries, and while claiming that those are not aimed at Russia this was quite obvious due to, you know, geography. Add up Kosovo, South Osetia, Libya and Syria and this entire Bizarre outcome of Ukranian revolution becomes quite a logical step of testing it's own might in geopolitical maneurers and nearby allies.
- Flip NATO plans for naval and rocket base at Crimea, watch the world's lack of reaction.
- Fly around world on da Putin Plane, shake hands with old friends, make sure they grand support when needed ([I]Ayeeee Argentina mah babeeey[/I]).
- unofficially support Rebels, ensure Ukraine is physicaly unable to get in NATO or EU in coming years, protection of Russia/Kazahstan/Belarus alliance stocks.
Basically, it's a solid reply to lack of considereration of Russian sphere of influence in previous years.
In the end, Goverment just saw "Player not giving a fuck" position vacant on political arena and took it chances.
Soo like i always said, no it's not warmorgering Putin or Evil Russia Empire. Politicians would never gain their position atop the goverment if they'd lack definitive quality for their cause -
cold calculating minds.
And modern situation is exactly the one where everyone knows what they doing.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;46063162]karimatrix post[/QUOTE]
[quote]militarized NATO[/quote]
i thought the goal of NATO was to be a western military alliance
[QUOTE=SexualShark;46063187]SexualShark post[/QUOTE]
Care to explain where he is wrong?
Nato is position weapons close to Russia and Russian complained, NATO continued to do so, despite it being considered a threat, Missile defences on the border of Russia can only be assumed to be targetted at Russia.
Everything he said was perfectly valid and imo impartial. One of the best posts I've seen on the topic.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46063195]Care to explain where he is wrong?
Nato is position weapons close to Russia and Russian complained, NATO continued to do so, despite it being considered a threat, Missile defences on the border of Russia can only be assumed to be targetted at Russia.
Everything he said was perfectly valid and imo impartial. One of the best posts I've seen on the topic.[/QUOTE]
i am not saying he was wrong, infact he is right. i was basically questioning the "militarized NATO" part.
[QUOTE=GunFox;46062593]Except there was no threat. Russia (putin and ultranationalists really) has now created a threat by being an asshole. Before NATO was largely just appreciating new possibilities for trade and member nations.NATO nations have close political ties.[/QUOTE]To add onto this: at one time there was serious talk about Russia's eventual admission into NATO and how much crazy shit would have to be done to make it all work. Everyone expected that Russia, post-USSR, would want to join Europe in NATO to secure peaceful relations with it's new neighbors.
Yeah. Think about that for a little bit. Russia using some AK variant that could accept STANAG magazines and Russian tanks firing the same ammo as the Abrams.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;46063206]i am not saying he was wrong, infact he is right. i was basically questioning the "militarized NATO" part.[/QUOTE]
I think the criticism is that NATO was established to stop the soviets spreading and stop Germany going all fourth reich. The soviets are gone and Germany has become model citizen of the world yet NATO continues to grow and making threatening gestures (missiles/missile defence) to Russia.
When the soviets fell people wanting to make friends, not lose friends and continue being the pariah of the developed world.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46063220]To add onto this: at one time there was serious talk about Russia's eventual admission into NATO and how much crazy shit would have to be done to make it all work. Everyone expected that Russia, post-USSR, would want to join Europe in NATO to secure peaceful relations with it's new neighbors.
Yeah. Think about that for a little bit. Russia using some AK variant that could accept STANAG magazines and Russian tanks firing the same ammo as the Abrams.[/QUOTE]
This could be cool. Really doubt about this part about ammo tho.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;46063206]i am not saying he was wrong, infact he is right. i was basically questioning the "militarized NATO" part.[/QUOTE]
I was just reffering to just-a-boy post's definition of NATO's current, more active spreading military state.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;46062194]Keep in mind that Russia fears a militarized NATO as much as we fear a militarized Russia.
When Ukraine, a buffer state between the two, wanted closer ties to NATO, Russia perceived that as a threat, especially since the Ukrainian base was right on the Russian border.
Think of the Cuba-Soviet issue. The people there wanted to be with the Soviets, US perceived that as a threat since it was so close, so we acted on them.[/QUOTE]I honestly absolutely despise the notion of buffer states and areas of influence, that smaller countries have to bend over backwards for their larger neighbours. It's not like e.g. us Finns can grab a saw and physically separate us from Russia like Bugs Bunny can; and I imagine Mexico has similar misgivings about the US at times.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;46063384]I honestly absolutely despise the notion of buffer states and areas of influence, that smaller countries have to bend over backwards for their larger neighbours. It's not like e.g. us Finns can grab a saw and physically separate us from Russia like Bugs Bunny can; and I imagine Mexico has similar misgivings about the US at times.[/QUOTE]
An Influenceless world is a world without borders, cause no borders means no economical, migrational and militaristical pressure.
Soo yeah, not happening on this planet.
[QUOTE=antianan;46063366]This could be cool. Really doubt about this part about ammo tho.[/QUOTE]
A global military alliance can't be achieved for same reason sadly, if Russia joined NATO it would only cripple country in migration to different logistic and equipment standart (You can actually check out Ukraine's plans for that - interesting topic to dig since it shows how much of compromise has to be considered), since Russian army is not the one that can achieve such vast change due to being, you know, quite massive.
For our world's only reason if any kind of international global force would exist is to have aliens building rocket sites on a damn moon.
[QUOTE=antianan;46063366]This could be cool. Really doubt about this part about ammo tho.[/QUOTE]
If the brits refuse to standardise their tank ammo with the rest of the world theres no way the Russians would.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;46063395]An Influenceless world is a world without borders, cause no borders means no economical, migrational and militaristical pressure.
Soo yeah, not happening on this planet.
A global military alliance can't be achieved for same reason sadly, if Russia joined NATO it would only cripple country in migration to different logistic and equipment standart (You can actually check out Ukraine's plans for that - interesting topic to dig since it shows how much of compromise has to be considered), since Russian army is not the one that can achieve such vast change due to being, you know, quite massive.
For our world's only reason if any kind of international global force would exist is to have aliens building rocket sites on a damn moon.[/QUOTE]
SH In 2150
"95% turnout on the moon federalisation referendum"
"Allience of Earth nations annexed moon claiming it was ethnically theirs"
"Xin d' Jun of Mars republic of mars denounced the president of Earth. It's evident that humans violate interplanet law"
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46063597]SH In 2150
"95% turnout on the moon federalisation referendum"
"Allience of Earth nations annexed moon claiming it was ethnically theirs"
"Xin d' Jun of Mars republic of mars denounced the president of Earth. It's evident that humans violate interplanet law"[/QUOTE]
Members of the United Titan League support solidarity with Mars as part of the SSTO (sol system treaty organisation) to push for more sanctions to earth as President Odama of Neptune draws up plans to erect a shield blocking the sun from earth. Nerkle of Jupiter was quoted saying the leaders of earth were
[quote=Nerkle]on another world[/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.