Russia in ten years

[Serb]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Subs don't matter really... Brits have more carriers, IIRC.

Carriers don't matter really... Russians have more subs.

Different doctrines.
We've never bet on carriers, always bet on subs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, but the naval power rating is (these days) tied to carriers. They are the battleships of 1900. The King of the Seas.

[faded glory]

Oh believe me, if Nigeria launced a terrorist attack on Moscow. Russia could get men there with ease. They can project if they want to. They have awesome air-divisions and as serb said, those subs ; while rusty, are still capable.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, but the naval power rating is (these days) tied to carriers. They are the battleships of 1900. The King of the Seas.

ya but like the battleship, its days are numbered. They have Silkworm missiles that can sink anything within 100 miles. The future of naval projection is cruise missiles, frigates, and umanned bomber drones.

[Serb]

Originally posted by faded glory
Russia would never join the EU, they lost hundreds of millions of lives over the past 200 years, to just give it up and take down there borders and say "Thats it, come on in Europe" without a shot. Still to nationalist over there.....

Good point FG, but it's about 500 years, we started our expansion in 16 century. I don't think that we need to join EU, but in far future who knows? Perhaps it's possible.

Although, from a European perspective. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Perhaps I stumbled upon there master plans for world domination? :scary:

We don't consider Europe as enemy.
Yet.
Currently we have one little problem with them. It's about Kalingrad (former Kenigsberg), our enclave, which could be cut off from main Russia after acceptance of new members (Baltic states) in EU.
I'll hope we'll find compromise.

[Carver]

Subs are very poor if that's your only means of projecting power onto the land. To project onto land you need aircraft flying off of carriers. Subs are good strategic weapons (Sub Launched Ballistic Missiles) and good sea to sea weapons, but for striking land targets all they have is cruise missles - which are a poor alternative.

And FG, as for the Silkworm and other antiship missles, the problem is getting within range to launch them. A US carrier battle group will NEVER let an aircraft get close enough to fire on the carrier. And remember, it would take many many Silkworms to sink a carier.

[DanS]

Originally posted by The Vagabond

That's true. Not enough people. But why would Russia need to be a superpower again? It's such a burden. Just look at the US. They have to care about everything in the world.

What Russia needs is just to be a good Great Power.

Agreed on all points. Russia could be a good great power on the cheap, while playing to her strengths: large land area, educated and resourceful populace, plentiful natural resources...

[faded glory]

What really holds russia's economy back now is the lack of a commercial banking system. What keeps foriegners and russians from keeping there money in russia, is that theres no gauruntee you will ever see it dividends.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
And DanS , growth rates change , and so do foreign policies. therefor , nothing is certain.

Yes, growth rates and foreign policies change. But show me the math that gets Russia back to superpower status. It just isn't there, unless Siberia is run over by Chinese immigrants.

As for foreign policies, I agree they do change. But Europe is doing everything opposite of what a superpower would do.

"As is France, Germany, China and Japan."

Imran: What are you talking about? France and the UK haven't been great powers since the 1950s. Germany and Japan haven't been great powers since WWII. All are now regional powers. The UK is closest to being a great power, but even the UK has only ventured out once by itself in the last 50 years.

A great power projects its power outside of its neighborhood, but doesn't have global coverage. A superpower projects its power globally. That's how the gradations go in Spanier, and I'm guessing that's the way most foreign affairs texts lay it out.

China hasn't exhibited great power tendencies lately. They stick to their regional interests. India will have the capability to be a great power (and perhaps superpower) in 20 or 30 years if they don't fvck things up.

Russia is almost guaranteed to be a great power, just by its configuration. But right now, Russia is in a temporary state of powerlessness.

The US is not likely to continue to be a superpower, unless we have a large infusion of immigrants.

[DanS]

"China will be the world's most powerful nation within 100-125 years, hands down."

Hogwash. India will best China in as little as 50 years.

Here's China...

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=CH&out=s&ymax=300

Here's India...

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=IN&out=s&ymax=300

[Shi Huangdi]

IMO, Russia will return to being a great power. Their growth rate has improved significantly. Russia has a ton of mineral resources that should improve Russia's economy. Right now corruption is a serious problem for the Russian economy, but hopefully that will be taken care of. Russian history has traditionally been a strong centralized government, and I think over time it will gravitate back to that. Russia also still has some of the world's top military technology and should they sucsesfully reorganize it they could most certainly be a great power in military terms. Low Russian population will probably change as soon as they economy stabilizes-- currently Russian eocnomics are in a chaotic state, and people don't want to have children because the next day they might not have the money to take care of the child. Once Russians become more secure in their future, it will be easier to have kids.

"Imran: What are you talking about? France and the UK haven't been great powers since the 1950s. Germany and Japan haven't been great powers since WWII. All are now regional powers. The UK is closest to being a great power, but even the UK has only ventured out once by itself in the last 50 years."

Well, that's the nature of the international system. In a multipolar system, such as one of the 19th century, you can find major powers acting for themselves all the time. In a Bipolar system, such as the cold war, nations tend to line up behind the two superpowers (Or two blocs of power) and so acting alone without support from your side tends to be rarer- and it was made even less likely due to the strong ideological alignment between Britain and the US. Had Britain wanted to be one of the nonaligned country, you could be sure they would maintain a large amount of influence. During the present a system, a unipolar system, the hegemon tends to get it's way, but that doesn't mean the hegemon doesn't ever have to rely on allies or that the hegemon is not influenced by other countries. Because Britain is our foremost ally and they have helped us so much in past mission, you can bet they have a great deal of influence in foreign policy. Britain also deserves to be called a great power due to it's trillion dollar economy and superb military.

As far as being superpowers, however, I doubt Britain and Russia will ever return to that(except possibly as part of the EU)

[DanS]

"you could be sure they would maintain a large amount of influence"

Yes, but they didn't, so they didn't.

"During the present a system, a unipolar system, the hegemon tends to get it's way, but that doesn't mean the hegemon doesn't ever have to rely on allies or that the hegemon is not influenced by other countries."

We haven't had a unipolar system for about 750 years. I don't think how we act is set in stone.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Carver
Subs are very poor if that's your only means of projecting power onto the land. To project onto land you need aircraft flying off of carriers. Subs are good strategic weapons (Sub Launched Ballistic Missiles) and good sea to sea weapons, but for striking land targets all they have is cruise missles - which are a poor alternative.

Cruise missile is a poor alternative for bomber?

And FG, as for the Silkworm and other antiship missles, the problem is getting within range to launch them. A US carrier battle group will NEVER let an aircraft get close enough to fire on the carrier. And remember, it would take many many Silkworms to sink a carier.

It's qustionable.
The Russian Kirov-class ships (btw, cosidering as the most powerfull surface ship of modern times) was designed exactly for this purpose. Their primary goal is to sink carriers from distances about 500 km. They have cruise missiles with uniqe targeting system. A group of missiles fly very low and it's almost impossible to shoot them down. Only one- leader missile fly at normal attitude. During flight missiles of main group constantly exchange targeting data with leader missile and if leader missile is shoot down by anti-aircraft defence it's replaced by another missile from main group.

" These ships play a special role in the armament system of the Navy and can constantly and continually maintain contact with enemy task forces and successfully fight them.They are intended for operations in remote regions of seas and oceans to destroy enemy nuclear missile submarines and surface ships, enhance combat capability of naval forces, escort convoys and landing ships during their transit to landing areas and their support at landing. The fire power of the cruiser is ensured by 20 underdeck missile launchers to fire cruise missiles with a considerable accuracy against enemy large surface ships of task forces at a range of over 500 km. The ship fire-control system fed with data from the target designation complex can use missiles at full firing range. The cruiser is able to maintain its strike potential via sophisticated AD armament. The armament comprises two versatile missile systems, Riff type, with underdeck drum type launchers for vertical liftoff of AD medium-range missiles. The AD guided missile can destroy any type of high speed maneuvering air targets at altitudes ranging from 25 m to 30 km and at a range of up to 90 km. The missile guidance system comprises one antenna post with a multifunctional phase antenna array. To ensure the cruiser's combat power, the armament also comprises the Kinzhal self-defense system outfitted with underdeck launchers of vertical liftoff. The AD missiles can engage various air targets at a range of up to 1.5 - 12 km. The cruiser air-defense and antimissile defense system also comprises two missile-artillery systems, Kashtan type: each of which comprises a detection radar, one command and three combat modules. The system ensures effective protection and combat power of the ship owing to an integrated control system, availability of channels for simultaneous tracking of targets and missiles in radar and TV-optical modes and full automation of combat control process, ranging from target detection to destruction. The missiles delivered in transporter-launcher containers can hit targets at a range of up to 8 km and 30mm automatic guns up to 5 km at maximum low flying targets and targets flying at a 4-km altitude. In addition to AD missile systems, the cruiser is also fitted with the AK-130 versatile shipborne artillery system to ensure self-defense against low flying antiship missiles. The cruiser's 130mm twin artillery mount is intended to deliver fire against sea and coastal targets and ensure fire support for naval landing. The artillery mount uses several types of complete rounds: HEF with impact, proximity and radio fuzes. The MR-184 fire-control system can track and engage two targets at a time. The MR-184 system comprises: a two-band target tracking radar, TV set, laser rangefinder, moving targets selection equipment and jamproof devices. The system ensures receipt of target designation data from shipborne target detection aids; precise measuring of movement parameters of air, sea and coastal targets; computing of anGle of elevation and azimuth during firing against sea target by referriNg to splashes. To protect the cruiser from enemy means of destruction, the armament system comprises ECM equipment and passive jamming system. Radar and optronic projectiles of passive jamming devices dispense decoys, thereby reducing the probability of guiding enemy missiles against the cruiser. Evolution of cruises image during its construction

The Pyotr Veliky cruiser's antisubmarine system comprises: sophisticated sonar equipment with an underkeel antenna (in bulbous fairing) and towed antenna of automated sonar system; versatile system of missile-torpedo armament, including 533mm launchers (five on either side) housed in the cruiser's hull and capable of delivering fire via side ports; RBU-1200 ten-barrelled launcher and two RBU-1000 six-barrelled launchers. The cruiser has space for two Ka-27 antisubmarine helicopters stowed in an underdeck hangar, magazine for aircraft ammunition load, lift and helicopter pad for takeoff and landing. The cruiser is fitted with the Flag type radar system, including radars with integrated primary processing of data received from detected targets. The cruiser automated combat control system is provided by an information control system. The cruiser navigation aids and armament ensure both combat and routine activity.The nuclear missile cruisers are characterized by the introduction of science-engineering and design solutions. For the first time in the world fighting surface ships of this series feature: - the introduction of underdeck arrangement of antiship cruise missile launchers; - the provision of underdeck storage and vertical liftoff of AD guided missile systems, Riff type, and also the AD system, Klinok type, aboard the Pyotr Veliky cruiser ; - the creation of a powerful echeloned AD and antimissile system intended for task force ships. The successful implementation of ideas and designs on the Project 1144 cruiser constitutes a huge potential for the domestic shipbuilding and the ability to create state-of-the-art and effective fighting ships. "

http://www.sevastopol.com/weapons/port/browse.asp?catid=268&linkid=1739

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/index.html

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't mean that way. Rather, do the corporate laws allow orderly bankruptcies? Are land deeds now recognized by the law? Is there something like a Uniform Commercial Code? That sort of thing.

They don't need an UCC IIRC. That's only for countries such as the US where there are separate federal and state/province laws and commerce laws belong to state/province jurisdiction. Most countries aren't that weird.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Serb
The Russian Kirov-class ships (btw, cosidering as the most powerfull surface ship of modern times) was designed exactly for this purpose. Their primary goal is to sink carriers from distances about 500 km. They have cruise missiles with uniqe targeting system. A group of missiles fly very low and it's almost impossible to shoot them down.

The Shipwreck SS anti-ship missiles.

But the Sunburn is supposedly the best anti-ship missile because of the sheer speed.