"Why are the Russians sending ships to the Med?" Topic

These may be a few of the reasons;

link

and why it's probably not a sign of war with the West.

No … it's not … only some with a limited view of the big picture would see it that way. They are there to support Assad in taking his country back. And I laud this …
I'd rather see Syria in Assad's hands than Daesh and some of the other factions involved. Once Syria is stabilized then the UN or some other such body can attempt to remove Assad with non-military means, etc., … Assad can be talked to … Daesh, AQ, etc., … not so much …

"Once Syria is stabilized…" I fear this will not be soon. Assad is a bloody handed dictator who needs to go, but I agree that the opposition are probably worse. Because no one would take that non-military action earlier, we have hundreds of thousands dead and millions of refugees.

NATO seems to have persuaded Spain not to supply fuel to the transitting Russian ships.

"Once Syria is stabilized…" I fear this will not be soon. Assad is a bloody handed dictator who needs to go, but I agree that the opposition are probably worse. Because no one would take that non-military action earlier, we have hundreds of thousands dead and millions of refugees.

I posted this on another thread.

Now something I heard on the news. That US SecDef, talked about coalition forces, like the Kurds and Turks, etc.. actually taking Raqqa too. I always thought that would fall to Assad forces with heavy Russian support. Do the Russians know about this ?

Will they just let the US led local forces attack Raqqa ? With no coordination, etc., ? After Assad's and Russian air assets turns Raqqa into the dark(er) side of the Moon before the US lead local forces can even do anything ?

I say let Assad and the Russians take care of Raqqa. The Russians seems much of "efficient" when dealing with Daesh types …

So as with much in that region … we'll have to wait and see …

No … it's not … only some with a limited view of the big picture would see it that way. They are there to support Assad in taking his country back.

I would call your attention to where this article comes from before you pooh-pooh as to it coming from folks with a more "limited" vision.

I'm not sure Raqqa would be high on the list of priorities. Assad is hamstrung by limited manpower and, even with Russia and Iranian support, cannot hope to retake, much less hold, the entire country. He should concentrate on retaking only populated areas where his support base is strong and then consolidate. All the talk about taking back the whole country is just propaganda and bluster. The fragmentation of Syria is a fait accompli.

The article is spot on.

I suspect reason #1 to be the most important, showing Putin as a powerful leader on the world stage.

As mentioned, those aircraft will have a very difficult time launching jets with large bomb loads, since it doesn't have catapults.

They'd be much better off being based at a land-base, where they can have a long runway to permit them to take off with lots of weaponry.

Of course, they can take off from the carrier with light to moderate loads, and almost empty fuel tanks, and then use buddy refueling to top off their fuel. That may help a bit.

I wonder if part of this is out of concern for the vulnerability of land-based aircraft to guerrilla attack?

I think operational training. Syria is being used as a training and proving ground with added bonus propaganda points for home consumption.

I wouldn't be surprised if the carrier ends up re based to Sebastapol in the Black Sea afterwards.

David

Better liberty ports than the Barents Sea. Even in the middle of summer Novaya Zemlya is no fun. Plus the Arctic is REALLY cold!

Russia is sending a message. There will be no further erosion of Syrian sovereignty. There will not be a "no fly zone" as proposed by some.

As to the effectiveness of using this fleet to achieve those means I can't say.

Showing the flag, propaganda, sending a message that Russia will defend Syrian territorial sovreignity, warning off the US and Israel, protecting Syria from a potential sea blockade, training and perhaps an ultimate redeployment to the Black Sea should things in Ukraine or the Caucus region heat up again further down the road? Those would be my guesses.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Yea, they're doing a lot of that lately.

Sending more forces into the Baltics as well, so the British are sending some tanks and troops to Estonia, in response to all the buildup and exercises by Russia in the region.

I would call your attention to where this article comes from before you pooh-pooh as to it coming from folks with a more "limited" vision.

I understand that … may opinion may be flawed. But at the time I posted, that was my first thought. It may change as the situation evolves ? I was not directing my comments to the author, but in general. Like to those in the media, etc., I did not make that clear. It was a general assessment based on that … IMO, The Russians are not sending ships to the Med to start a war with the US/NATO … Hence it's probably not a sign of war with the West. No it is not a sign of war with the West.

I agree this is mainly a political stunt.

But the article doesn't mention one bit of military capability the Russian squadron offers and neither does anyone here.

But a smart bunny in the comments section does – the battle group's punch comes from its missile armament, not it's fighter aircraft.

The carrier has 12 P-700 Granit anti-shipping missiles whilst Peter The Great battlecruiser has 20. These are large long range supersonic missiles with a 750 kilogram warhead (or alternatively a 500 kt nuclear payload).

These are carrier/fleet killer missiles. Thus there is a form of deterrence in deploying the carrier.

The fleet also has decent ASW capabilities in terms of its helo fleet (18 x Ka-27PL on carrier alone plus a further 7 on battlecruiser and 2 destroyers).

Peter the Great also has a pretty strong A2A suite based on S300s.

No doubt there's a submarine or two in there as well.

The jobs of the Su-33s in this fleet is not A2G, it's fleet protection.

----

I doubt this Russian fleet could defeat a USN carrier group in a "fair fight".

But it does have deterrence capability against the US, especially operations in the Mediterranean.

All you need is 1 lucky strike from a P700 and several thousand US sailors are dead.

------

Finally Russian aircraft carriers were always regarded by the Soviets as cruisers with large aircraft components. This was partially to gain carrier access to Black Sea and bypass Montreux Treaty limitations.

But the carriers usually had a different function to US fleet carriers. Their main role was defensive – hunting enemy attack submarines and providing air defence for land based bombers. Offensive armament was based on anti shipping missiles.

Most of the air component were thus helicopters. For the Kiev class (all retired bar one sold to India) flight decks only covered part of the hull with the rest being dedicated to missile armament.

Thus in many ways the Russian carriers are closer to Royal Navy's Invincible class light carriers "through deck cruisers" or the first two LHAs of the America class than USN fleet carriers.

i've noticed that it has taken the Russians five days to get from Dover to the Straits of Gibraltar … a journey a cruise liner would take three days to do travelling at 20 knots.

I'm wondering if they didn't want to risk taking the 'carrier' too far out into the Atlantic, hence the trip across the North Sea and down the Channel. She does seem to be making a lot of smoke, and doesn't seem to be steaming at a speed that would permit fixed wing aircraft to operate. She is an old ship and may well have suffered from poor maintenance when she was laid up.

I'm reasonably sure that sinking a US carrier would be considered Casus Belli in the US. Not a path to go down lightly which is why I would consider the missile threat remote.

I'm also reasonably sure there are a couple of NATO subs shadowing the entire group and more than capable of acting should that occur. As has been posted they're not exactly moving fast and with limited industry to replace them it wouldn't make sense to go down the route of engagement.

I still say flag waving exercise to build prestige and provide real world combat experience.

David

Bound for Sebastopol, the newly reacquired warm water port………gives a tad more leverage in the Black Sea against Ukraine, Turkey etc.
They may deploy the planes to their base in Syria…..replacement in place, to improve the experience levels across more Russian pilots.

Many realize that Putin does a lot things for his own "electorate's" consumption. Sabre rattling to show so many Russians that the Russian state is strong again. After that entire "glasnost", etc., fiasco. Costing "Mother" Russian territory as well as prestige, etc., in the world.

I'm sure the average Russian is no more "knowledgeable" about the "big picture" than the average American. Just what the media/ daily news feeds are showing.

Given Spain and Malta have refused to offer refuelling facilities, do they have sufficient 'legs' to get to the Black Sea?

Refueling at anchor of Africa now, are they not practiced enough to do it while under way?

"I'm sure the average Russian is no more "knowledgeable" about the "big picture" than the average American. Just what the media/ daily news feeds are showing."

Indeed, or the average person any where. Its how it is. What confuses me if how taking Mosul from the Jihadis- a good thing is any different from taking half of Raqqa from the Jihadis- equally a good thing. There we go, I'm probably too simple to understand it. Or I'm being lied to by people who think I'm to simple to make the connection. Its got to be one of the two.

Anyhow here is a proper Journo we have few left.

link

Probably not.

Refueling at sea while moving is very challenging.

I'm not even sure the Chinese can do that, and suspect Russian crews have long since lost that experience, after the end of the Cold War.

Supposedly, Kuznetsov's engines have always been weak, and/or poorly designed. Sitting in port for several decades doesn't seem to have helped.

Then again, perhaps we've got it all wrong, and all that smoke is just part of an integral smokescreen capability for self-protection, kind of like they've given to their T-55s and later models. It gets much thicker when they really pour on the speed, and oil injected directly into the system.

;-)

Refueling underway at sea is absolutely the most dangerous thing you can do in the Navy.

While the USN does it every Sunday, it's still not something done lightly. If someone screws up, you will have a massive fuel fire, if not a collision.

Indeed, or the average person any where. Its how it is. What confuses me if how taking Mosul from the Jihadis- a good thing is any different from taking half of Raqqa from the Jihadis- equally a good thing.

I really don't care who retakes Raqqa or Mosul. Just so Daesh/AQ types are no longer in charge. And most of them dead.

But the article you posted was about Mosul and Aleppo news coverage. And was pretty informative. However, Raqqa is the de facto capital for the Daesh caliphate and Mosul their "2nd City". With Baghdadi and his adult male heirs being ensconced there. So …

Regardless, the reason I feel that Mosul and Raqqa are good objectives. Is that is where the enemy is. And in big numbers. Like cockroaches when the lights are turned on, they scurry for cover. But these cockroaches are all in one place. Two actually, so they present very good targets.

And with both cities retaken, Baghdadi and adult sons gone, it does not bode well for the Deash caliphate. Which is losing more assets and ground everyday. And having problems getting reinforced and resupplied. It's basic military doctrine and tactics.

I'm reasonably sure that sinking a US carrier would be considered Casus Belli in the US. Not a path to go down lightly which is why I would consider the missile threat remote.

Of course.

But arguably imposing a no fly zone over Syria would also be a Casus Belli for the Russians. Especially as imposing a no fly zone requires incapacitating the enemy's air defences and air power.

And it is possible the US will be looking to establish a no fly zone after 8 November.

So having the North Sea Fleet in the Mediterranean gives the Russians a powerful deterrence force.

Refueling at sea while moving is very challenging.

I'm not even sure the Chinese can do that, and suspect Russian crews have long since lost that experience, after the end of the Cold War.

For the last several voyages, all their refuelling seems to be at anchorage.

Mind you the Russian fleet is not really a blue water fleet (neither is the Chinese fleet or even the RN). It's a coastal navy. The Chinese Navy is a true coastal navy.

Only the USN retains a truly blue water surface navy ie ability to sustain blue water ops.

Doing piracy patrols or humanitarian ops isn't real blue water capability (even the Iranians do this with their pathetic little fleet of ancient corvettes/light frigates).

Having a carrier doesn't ensure blue water capability either especially if you lack sufficient escorts and logistic ships or alternatively bases and access to sea lanes.*

*This is why IMO the Chinese will always remain a coastal navy. They don't have access to a single ocean without having to go through other country's waters or close to other country's. They lack secure bases. At the same time they simply don't have the logistics to sustain a battle group in open oceans.

True blue water navies usually had very good access to open oceans as well as bases (French, British up to the 1970s, US). The WWII IJN was actually similar – great access to open ocean (Pacific) and good logistics to be able to sustain long range battle groups.

Yet the Germans never had any of this so their surface navy was largely coastal with a few long range raiders and submarines as limited blue water component.

The Chinese, Russian and in past German blue water component was/is really restricted to submarines only. And again in this day and age, even Iran can sustain a reasonably long range Kilo out on patrol.

The Russians are screwed by same problems as Chinese for the most part.

Supposedly, Kuznetsov's engines have always been weak, and/or poorly designed. Sitting in port for several decades doesn't seem to have helped.

Then again, perhaps we've got it all wrong, and all that smoke is just part of an integral smokescreen capability for self-protection, kind of like they've given to their T-55s and later models.

I suspect it's just Soviet designs. Even their jet engines were always smokey.

Kuznetsov is in dire need of refit and modernisation and is scheduled to be upgraded next year. That assumes she is not lying on the bottom of the Mediterranean or the ports haven't been turned into glass car parks by then.

I think the Russians keep her afloat for the same reason the Italians have the Giuseppe Garibaldi and Cavour, the Brazillians have the Sao Paulo, the Spanish have Juan Karlos, the South Koreans have Dokdo and the Thais have Chakri Naruebet – national prestige

I think for smaller navies, a few extra frigates and submarines offers a far better deal than a white elephant carrier carrying a handful of aircraft.

Carriers are actually a stupid thing for smaller navies – they're expensive to acquire and maintain, gut most of the surface combatant pool (used as escorts) and offer limited capability – operating a handful of AV-8Bs or helicopters or even A-4 Skyhawks (Brazil) doesn't offer much capability.

Precisely. The Russians are committing a substantial military force in and around Syria that would deter the west in imposing a no-fly zone aimed at Assad's removal because it would require the destruction (or at least neutralization) of that force.

28mm Fanatik,

Good summary of my drawn out post.

What's interesting is that there appear to be parties on both sides who are seemingly very keen to escalate the current situation.

A number of commentators have said that a new Cold War won't be like the last one. Indeed most of the rules and fail safes of the old Cold War are no longer in place or being adhered to.

It makes everything a lot more unpredictable.

Russia pre-empted the western nations who want Assad gone by establishing a military presence in Syria and publicly backing Assad before the west can push for a no-fly zone. It's a direct result of lessons learned in Libya when Russia stood aside while the west used the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone for regime change purposes.

I think a no fly zone would already be in place if Russia wasn't already involved.

I don't see a US carrier establishing a no fly zone, they are useful when no land based alternatives exist but surely for a sustained operation such as a no fly zone you would be looking for allied air forces to participate as well.

I still think operational experience and probably moving the group to the Black sea.
I also think it will burn through more spares that may be hard to come by as well as burning through the defense budget.
Russia has already been making noises through the plutonium agreement to accept Crimea's annexation, lift sanctions and pay reparations for economic damage.

David

Kiltboy,

If the US doesn't deploy a carrier group to the Mediterranean, then the Ruskis can attempt to put holes in the Charles de Gaulle (was in Eastern Med last time I heard) or other NATO surface units if by some chance Syria turns into a shooting war between Russians and West.

The S300s on Pyotr Velikiyi as well as Varyag (already on station) could also be used to target US aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.

This may be tinfoil-hat-worthy speculation but what if there are no planes and helos on the Kuznetsov? Those bays could be full of advanced Russian IAD equipment and mobile SAM launchers bound for Syria. Then the planes and helos could be flown to Syria from Russia and be reunited with the Kuznetsov after delivery. Likewise missiles could be flown in to rearm them much more easily than bringing in entire launchers. Cost effective transport of bulky equipment might be an attraction to a cash-strapped Russia. Every inch of spare space on many of those ships could be used to store and transport a huge amount of sophisticated equipment and spare parts. What a PR coup it would be if SA-300 and even SA-400 systems were emplaced into Syria right under the noses of the West and Israel. Perhaps this is too Tom Clancy but to me it might warrant consideration.

I'll take my meds now and be quiet for a bit!

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod, definitely take your meds! :P

S300s are already on the ground in Syria and have been for some time. The Slava class cruisers that have been rotating out of Eastern Mediterranean also have S300s as does Pyotr Velikiji.

And why use a carrier when a dirty old cargo ship will suffice and have been perfectly adequate.

Pics of Kuznetsov in English Channel reveal Su-33 Flankers on deck.

Deadles

Certainly they could put holes in them if they wished.

I think the greater risk is an aircraft shoot down that could lead to escalation.
If it does escalate to a shooting war (and I strongly hope it doesn't) then I say the Russian ships get sunk in short order by whichever NATO subs are present to prevent exactly that.

I could see the S300 challenging aircraft in a no fly zone as their operational range covers the major cities where a no fly zone would be useful the s400 system has an even greater impact.

There is also the risk to civilian traffic with that system in a similar way that MH17 was shot down by a Russian Buk.

Hopefully they've learned that lesson.

David

Rod … just have a few too many at the local pub …

Well here's one thing they are saying they are there for:

Russia to test newest helicopter missiles against terrorists in Syria
October 26, 2016
Russian helicopters based on the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft carrier will test the newest "Germes" [Hermes] long-range guided anti-tank missiles against terrorists in Syria. Unlike other weapons of this class whose range does not exceed 10 kilometers, these new missiles are capable of hitting targets at three times a greater distance.

"Currently, a small batch of missiles has been prepared to be tested with Ka-52 helicopters. Their testing in combat will help the final design of the missile system set to become the standard weapon of ‘Alligator' Russian attack helicopters. Earlier, Germes were planned to be tested with Ka-52 helicopters already based at Hmeimim, but there were difficulties with fine-tuning the missiles. Now it has been decided to test the Germes in more difficult conditions with ship-basing," a source from Russia's military-industrial complex told the newspaper Izvestiya.

The Tula Construction Design Bureau started to develop the Germes in the middle of the 1990's. Despite the fact that the complex is classified as an anti-tank missile, such missiles are capable of hitting all sorts of targets in a row, including fortifications, buildings, and clusters of enemy forces. The Germes' speed is close to hypersonic and the only existing missile of the same class in the world capable of competing with it is the Israeli Spike-NLOS.

It should be noted that the testing of Russian long-range guided anti-tank missiles in combat conditions also represents an advertisement for selling Germes to Egypt which intends to purchase Mistral helicopters armed with such missiles. Experts believe that given the difficult relations between Cairo and Tel Aviv, the Egyptians are interested in missiles superior to Israel's long-range ones.

link

link

Makes sense … Good intel …

I'm not aware the rebels, ahem, terrorists d
have tanks.

I'm not aware the rebels, ahem, terrorists d
have tanks.

You might want to do some actual research old bean!

Various rebel groups have plenty of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles including home builts and captured Syrian government armour as well as some captured Iraqi stuff (mainly M1117).

Here's some linkages to rebel weapons from both sides.

DIY weapon upgrades – from homemade BAR armour for existing tanks to mining trucks converted as APCS

spioenkop.blogspot.com.au/search/label/DIY

Jaish Al Islam rebel group and their armour and SA8s.

Their armour includes BMPs, T-72s,T-55s, ZSU-23. They even established an armour school.

spioenkop.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Jaish%20al-Islam

Stuff on existing Syrian armour with references to rebel captured ones:

¯spioenkop.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/syrias-steel-beasts-t-55.html

spioenkop.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/syrias-steel-beasts-t-72.html

spioenkop.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/onwards-to-front-syrias-bmps.html

ISIS battle reports including their usage of armour

spioenkop.blogspot.com.au/search/label/The%20Islamic%20State%20going%20DIY

Old list of weapons including armour captured/destroyed by ISIS with pictorial evidence:

spioenkop.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/vehicles-and-equipment-captured.html

Seems Russians have also deployed brand new Ka-35 AWACS choppers to Syria. These are an upgraded version of original Ka-31.

Type only entered service in August 2015.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J-QYnZvbcOo