- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 14,012
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Location
- Southern Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And while the Kremlin is growing their amphibious firepower, the number of US submarines is dwindling.
The incredible report says the formerly formidable Royal Navy is at its “lowest ebb” while NATO needs to reinvest its defence capabilities or risk being toppled by the might of Putin’s super subs.
Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain with Center for New American Security, told Breaking Defense said: “We’re in a bad place as an alliance with regard to Russia’s underwater resurgence.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15233...t-warns-nato-vladimir-putin-uk-waters-moscow/
And while the Kremlin is growing their amphibious firepower, the number of US submarines is dwindling.
The incredible report says the formerly formidable Royal Navy is at its “lowest ebb” while NATO needs to reinvest its defence capabilities or risk being toppled by the might of Putin’s super subs.
Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain with Center for New American Security, told Breaking Defense said: “We’re in a bad place as an alliance with regard to Russia’s underwater resurgence.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15233...t-warns-nato-vladimir-putin-uk-waters-moscow/
It makes sense for them to go for submarines, seeing how crucial the Bosporus and straits of Denmark are. If we were engaged in a long-term engagement with Russia, NATO could shut both passages and strangle both their trade and their ability to deploy, resupply, or resupply warships. So it's crucial that what navy they do deploy is difficult to detect.
It's a cause for some concern, but ultimately Russia's geography cripples it's ability to out-project the West in terms of sea power. The best that this could do is to maximize the havoc that they could wreak, and even then I find some of the claims so hyperbolic as to be questionable (like the several thousand meter depth dives... they must be talking about crush depth, which is dishonest). I think that someone wants to sell submarine parts =)
It's called mutual assured destruction
Russia cannot afford to launch WWIII, either in blood or in treasure.
from a western perspective maybe, they don't have the same political limitations the west does.
Russia seems to be the World leader in titanium technology and their new titanium alloy subs are especially good. My thoughts are that if you park nuke missiles on borders adjacent to the Russian motherland, then Russia will plant nukes on the threatening Nations borders. Parked submarines near shore USA. Tit for tat, don't ya' know? That is why the USA should not have re-started the Cold War. Good for business, bad for humans. Not complicated.
And while the Kremlin is growing their amphibious firepower, the number of US submarines is dwindling.
The incredible report says the formerly formidable Royal Navy is at its “lowest ebb” while NATO needs to reinvest its defence capabilities or risk being toppled by the might of Putin’s super subs.
Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain with Center for New American Security, told Breaking Defense said: “We’re in a bad place as an alliance with regard to Russia’s underwater resurgence.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15233...t-warns-nato-vladimir-putin-uk-waters-moscow/
Russia seems to be the World leader in titanium technology and their new titanium alloy subs are especially good. My thoughts are that if you park nuke missiles on borders adjacent to the Russian motherland, then Russia will plant nukes on the threatening Nations borders. Parked submarines near shore USA. Tit for tat, don't ya' know? That is why the USA should not have re-started the Cold War. Good for business, bad for humans. Not complicated.
Funny, I thought the invasion of the Crimea restarted the Cold War. Or was it the invasion of Georgia? In any event, this hyped up bull**** about Russian submarines must be music to your ears, Dave. How exciting for you and all the other Putinistas!
Russia's had really fast, deep-diving titanium-hulled subs since the 1980's - the Alfa class. Do you know why the U.S. Navy didn't copy this strategy (though we certainly copied their concepts of CIWS, cruise missiles, and stealth technology)?
Because unlike the HY100 steel that we use to make our subs, when one of those hideously-expensive titanium-hulled subs dive down to test depth, and the sailors onboard watch the bulkheads, decks, and overheads all squeeze inches inwards around them (I've watched it myself - it's a truly eerie feeling)...when the titanium-hulled subs come back up, the hull doesn't flex back outwards so well, whereas the HY100 hulls DO flex back outwards to their original shape.
What happens as a result? When a sub's hull is warped as theirs would be, this hurts the sub's ability to stay quiet...and the ability to operate silently is FAR more important than the ability to dive deeper or go faster. Why? Because one can't outdive or outrun a MK48 torpedo.
We're a heck of a lot more concerned with the ultraquiet diesel subs that China's trying to build and deploy than we are Russia's hideously-expensive titanium subs.
Georgia, run by the CIA agent Saakashvili, who is fleeing prosecution in Georgia and now a CIA flunkee in Ukraine (Odessa). Show me some photos of that Crimean invasion. I can show lots of photos of the CIA Coup D'etat in Kiev, and lots of dead bodies, still not investigated, by the way. I think Putin is a level headed leader who does not desire to be a sock puppet for Western (read USA) Banking hegemony and NWO corporatism. A sound independent banking system is a threat to the current fiat currency con game. I wonder why Russia, China, and India keep purchasing Gold? That'd be real gold, not paper transactions. They probably just be dumbasses, don't ya' know? No, you don't know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?