Military Issues

[Endovelico]

China, Russia to hold first-ever Mediterranean naval exercise
Published time: May 01, 2015 05:33
http://rt.com/news/254613-china-russia- ... nean-navy/

The Russian and Chinese Navies are to hold a joint exercise in the Mediterranean Sea in mid-May, a first in that part of the world. A total of nine warships from the two countries are to participate, Beijing said.

"The aim is to deepen both countries' friendly and practical cooperation, and increase our navies' ability to jointly deal with maritime security threats," Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said on Thursday in a monthly news briefing.

"What needs saying is that these exercises are not aimed at any third party and have nothing to do with the regional situation," he added, saying that the Chinese Navy would contribute its warships currently on an anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden.

Russia and China have previously held joint naval exercises in the Pacific in waters they both have direct access to. The Mediterranean Sea Cooperation-2015 drill would focus on navigation safety, at-sea replenishment, escort missions and live fire exercises, Geng said.

Moscow and Beijing are intensifying defense cooperation as both countries oppose US criticism of its military policies. China is being accused of aggressive deployments in the South China Sea, where it is contesting territories with several regional nations. The PLA’s Navy and Air Force have been increasingly at odds with Japan and South Korea, key American allies.

Russia has been subjected to economic sanctions over its position in Ukraine which, according to Washington, is threatening its NATO allies in Eastern Europe.

It goes to show how smart it is to keep poking the bear...

[Typhoon]

Certainly. The bear starts building more obsolete bombers.

[Endovelico]

Certainly. The bear starts building more obsolete bombers.

If that's so, you don't have anything to fear... but fear itself...

[Doc]

Certainly. The bear starts building more obsolete bombers.

If that's so, you don't have anything to fear... but fear itself...

Fear of what?

[Endovelico]

I guess I didn't make, in another thread, a very good job at explaining Portuguese wars in Africa and their level of violence, so I'm going to give it another try.

In 1961, when the rebellion started in Angola, what most people in Portugal knew of our territories in Africa is that they had been under our control for hundreds of years. Contrarily to what had happened with Brazil, we benefited very little economically from those possessions. Angola had coffee, diamonds (but nothing compared with South Africa), iron ore, and oil had just been discovered but was not yet being exploited. In other words, few people benefited from our controlling Angola. And the other possessions were economically irrelevant to us. When the rebellion started most people thought we should do something to protect people living there, but that was it. When troops started being sent there, there was no immediate negative reaction. And the pictures we then saw of the atrocities committed by the rebels against farmers, their families and workers, white and black, made us realize that those rebels should be repressed. But in no way was our going to Africa to fight a matter of patriotism or of defending our fatherland. As soldiers started dying any little enthusiasm about going to Angola simply evaporated. We were going because we were told to go and nobody knew what to expect. Officers, who were a bit more cultivated, knew little. The enlisted men, many of whom came from rural areas, knew absolutely nothing. I was exactly in the same situation when, in february 1966, I was sent to Angola. After a 10 day sea trip I arrived to Luanda and I could hardly believe my eyes. A beautiful city, quite large, very busy, all the smells and colours which to me became forever associated with Africa. After four days in Luanda I was sent by bus to the then Nova Lisboa (today, Huambo), the second city in Angola, to join my unit. And I started realizing that Angola was an incredibly beautiful country. In no time I came to the conclusion that it was worthwhile fighting to protect such country and their people. Whether Angola became independent or not was irrelevant. I was not there to keep Angola Portuguese, I was there to give all those people - both black and white - a chance to live in peace, to work and be happy. And I guess most Portuguese soldiers who went to Angola felt something like this. As such there was no way we would mistreat the local population. We would fight the rebels, and that was it.

That's why, after a more violent reaction in 1961, when confronted with the rebels atrocities, we quickly addressed ourselves to the task of containing the rebellion and preventing it from disrupting the life in Angola. We were very sober about it, sought no glory or medals, tried to keep alive by doing away with the enemy, but without exposing ourselves too much. We slowly freed the rural population from control by the rebels, pushed them to mostly empty and isolated regions, or beyond the borders of Angola. In that way there was practically no disruption of normal life in Angola, over 90% of the people were never in danger, the economy grew, more people came from Portugal and, by 1973, there were practically no rebels inside Angola, and fighting was kept to a minimum. In such a war there was no room for atrocities. Rebels were fought, but they were not hated, and no sane soldier would kill unnecessarily. One must realize that we are a very individualistic people. Our fellow soldiers were not "brothers" who had to be avenged if killed in action. The eye for an eye attitude didn't exist among us. Nobody would dream of hurting civilians to punish the rebels. The hateful element in our war were the political police. They were the ones who interrogated prisoners - often using torture - and repressed any political dissent. If any war crimes were committed, they were almost always by them. That's why I consider ridiculous all attempts at making us look like butchers in respect of the wars in Africa. Foreigners may believe such nonsense, we don't. Those of us who were there - at least 500,000 - know what it was like and dismiss those attempts. The others, who weren't there and had no relatives in the army, couldn't care less. There are now over 200,000 Portuguese working in Angola, and tens of thousand Angolans working in Portugal, and the war is absolutely no issue. In all the years I have had African students, only once did one ask me if I had been in Angola killing blacks... We talked about it and we became friends. In fact - he was working for UNITA and the civil war was raging in Angola - I had later the opportunity of offering him shelter in my house, when he was afraid of being deported because of his political activities.

At least in Angola, things were very different from what many foreigners think. And the real killing only started after independence, with the civil war between UNITA and MPLA. But since no whites were involved, I guess that is not an issue for most of the press. After all "one" expects blacks to behave like savages and gladly kill each other...

[Endovelico]

Soviet nuke-capable sub-killing copter comeback slated
Published time: May 13, 2015 10:12
http://rt.com/news/258081-anti-submarine-mi14-comeback/

The Russian Navy has reportedly expressed interest in resurrecting the once-feared nuclear-capable Mi-14 anti-submarine helicopter. In the 1990s, Washington insisted on their decommissioning, along with strategic bombers and ballistic missiles.

Following the news two weeks ago that Russia is preparing to renew production of the Tu-160 ‘Blackjack’ supersonic strategic bomber and missile carrier, it’s reported that the Mil Mi-14 Soviet anti-submarine helicopter could soon be back on production line.



Business Online media outlet from Russia's Republic of Tatarstan, where the Mi-14 was produced, says that its capital's Kazan Helicopter Works (KVZ) is preparing to return the Mi-14 to the Russian Navy. KVZ has not commented on the news, but a source within the works says the re-commissioning issue has been raised.

The Mil Mi-14 is a shore-based amphibious helicopter armed with (optionally) a torpedo, twelve 64kg or eight 120kg depth bombs. This submarine killer also had very special ammo in its arsenal: a 1 kiloton nuclear antisubmarine bomb weighting 1,600kg, capable of scuttling any underwater target within a radius of 800 meters.

The chopper not only had a unique capability of landing on water, but was an all-weather long-range helicopter capable of operating as far as 300km offshore.

The helicopter could stay airborne for 5.5 hours and cover a total distance of 1,100km.

Its sonars, magnetometers, hydroacoustic beacons and other special submarine-tracking equipment were highly-advanced and effectively detected all types of submarines. Once spotted, a sub was doomed and could not escape.

The Americans took Mi-14 on a special notice after an incident in late 1980s, when an unidentified foreign submarine, presumably of the US Navy, was detected in the Soviet territorial waters. The intruder was allowed to leave unharmed only because the actual command to eliminate the border violator never came, Business Online reported.

The Mi-14 was so good at submarine hunting that in 1996, under tremendous pressure from Washington, all Russian antisubmarine version Mi-14 helicopters were decommissioned.

With the Russian Navy undergoing massive re-equipment, Mi-14 would allegedly be highly sought after by the Black Sea and the Northern Fleets.

The helicopter can also be used at offshore oilfields and for rescue operations at sea.

The initial demand for the aircraft is reportedly estimated at 100 helicopters.

Experts believe, the re-commissioning of the amphibian helicopter could be done within two years in several stages. First stage implies restoration of 10 decommissioned Mi-14s, then they will undergo deep modernization, and the third stage will be essentially the return to production line, which might reportedly take up to five years.

The new version of Mi-14 is likely to get new engines, advanced avionics and modern electronics. It is expected that modern version of Mi-14 will have better floating stability than its forebears.

Another consequence of poking the bear... All to the advantage of the West...

[Typhoon]

Self-praise is indeed faint praise.

Anti-sub helicopters are not exactly a novel concept.

Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk

Westland Lynx

[noddy]

The chopper not only had a unique capability of landing on water

sometime things are unique not because they are wonderful, but because nooone else was that stupid.

CAGveozCPJM

[Simple Minded]

Self-praise is indeed faint praise.

But music to one's own ears, and "the people's" ears none the less!

It's kinda like circus music!

I wonder if they have a mascot?

[Endovelico]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

[Simple Minded]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

Endo,

If in hindsight this is so clear, so why exactly did you not leave the bear in peace?

Why do Europeans seem to have such a deep seated fear of Russia?

[noddy]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

so inconsistent!

now you are complaining about escalating government investment in factories, electronics, robotics and aeronautical technology

[Endovelico]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

Endo,

If in hindsight this is so clear, so why exactly did you not leave the bear in peace?

Why do Europeans seem to have such a deep seated fear of Russia?

Because we - or at least our beloved leaders - are very, very stupid...

[Doc]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

Endo,

If in hindsight this is so clear, so why exactly did you not leave the bear in peace?

Why do Europeans seem to have such a deep seated fear of Russia?

Because we - or at least our beloved leaders - are very, very stupid...

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

[Typhoon]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

Endo,

If in hindsight this is so clear, so why exactly did you not leave the bear in peace?

Why do Europeans seem to have such a deep seated fear of Russia?

Because we - or at least our beloved leaders - are very, very stupid...

What do you mean by "we", Kemosabe?

[Endovelico]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

Endo,

If in hindsight this is so clear, so why exactly did you not leave the bear in peace?

Why do Europeans seem to have such a deep seated fear of Russia?

Because we - or at least our beloved leaders - are very, very stupid...

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

All of us who live in Europe and keep voting for those idiots who are dragging us towards a disaster.

[Simple Minded]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

Endo,

If in hindsight this is so clear, so why exactly did you not leave the bear in peace?

Why do Europeans seem to have such a deep seated fear of Russia?

Because we - or at least our beloved leaders - are very, very stupid...

That sucks!

Against stupidity, even a god-like being such as yourself will struggle in vain!

Can I interest you guys in some flammers?

Next time you guys form a union, start with something simple first, to build up your sense of self-confi, er I mean group confidence, and a sense of community. You know like adopting a common language, then move on to the harder stuff.

What would be your choice for a language for the Sothern Mediterranean Union (SMU)?

[Endovelico]

What would be your choice for a language for the Sothern Mediterranean Union (SMU)?

Latin or classical Greek come to mind...

In fact we do not need a common language, just another lingua franca, as we have already done several times in the past. And I think English would do fine...

[Typhoon]

Some of you are missing the point. Russia is getting more and better equipment, which will force NATO to do the same. That's all we need, to spend a few billion euro/dollars to deal with a danger which we ourselves are creating. Had we left the bear in peace and we could use that money for much better things...

Better equipment, indeed.

[Endovelico]

Waiting for NATO...


Russia's Buk-M3 antiaircraft missile, target-destruction probability 99.99%...

[Endovelico]

[Alexis]

Certainly. The bear starts building more obsolete bombers.

Yes... and No... and Yes again... but probably No in fact?
No clear cut answer on that one.

- Tu-160 are not stealthy. Flying them over territory of a country with modern air defence would not be healthy for the pilots. Keyword: turkey shoot
- On the other hand, Tu-160 are not designed to overfly hostile territory. They carry 12 long range or 24 short range cruise missiles, the former with 3,000 km range, the latter with range 300 km. So their not being stealthy is not a big issue: they are designed to stay away from the defensive perimeter
- Well, but who needs nuclear-armed bombers anyway? For deterrence, survivability of the reprisal weapons is key, and bombers' is miserable since it would be so easy to destroy them preventively with nuclear ICBMs. Only SLBMs and mobile ICBMs are useful for serious deterrence, no bombers
- On the other hand... these birds, originally (1980s) intended for nuclear bombing, are no longer. Versions with conventional warheads of their cruise missiles have been developed. Obviously, firing a few dozens conventional cruise missiles at America would be both futile (wounds would be light) and extremely dangerous (imagine US anger!). However, their primary targets are probably not on ground... but at sea

Russia does not have serious seaborne force projection capability - I mean, not compared to America. Her capability is probably lesser than France's in that regard. What she has is the best non-American capability to deny others their own seaborne force projection capabilities

This capability is based on:
- 8 Project 949A Antey (Oscar II) nuclear submarines, each with 24 heavy long range antiship cruise missiles. These submarines are aircraft carrier hunters
- 11 (now) Tu-160 long range bombers

How this force would fare in actual combat against aircraft carrier groups is anybody's guess. These are heavily defended, notably by air defense cruisers with lots of missiles. France's Aster 30 missiles have been demonstrated to stop supersonic highly manoeuverable antiship missiles, and it's a safe bet America's missiles have similar ability. The answer depends primarily not on Russia's bombers, but on her antiship missiles, which are being improved... but how, and to what extent?

What Russia has announced is expansion of her seaforce denial capability (which has been diminishing, there were 16 operational Tu-160s a few years ago). Message is two-fold:
- To America - "In case of war, we could deny you sea force projection, which would fatally reduce your overseas influence. You want to speak with us about international topics, ignoring us would be dangerous. Emphatically, you don't want war with us"
- To Russians - "We are back at the big gorillas' table. All hail our President!"

The first of these messages has at least a degree of credibility, because the only way to know for sure whether Anteys and Tu-160 can destroy aircraft carrier groups is a real war. Neither America nor Russia (nor France) can know for sure without actual trial, and nobody in his right mind wants to pay this price to know the answer.

[Endovelico]

We may be barking up the wrong tree... The real issue is that he US, just like Japan in 1941, may be forced to start a war to avoid the collapse of its economy and becoming increasingly vulnerable to Chinese and Russian capacity to destroy it. New Chinese and Russian weapons will make it increasingly hazardous for the US to attack. So, war must come soon or the US will fade away without a single shot having to be fired. The US might simply accept fading away, but I doubt it...

[Alexis]

We may be barking up the wrong tree... The real issue is that he US, just like Japan in 1941, may be forced to start a war to avoid the collapse of its economy and becoming increasingly vulnerable to Chinese and Russian capacity to destroy it. New Chinese and Russian weapons will make it increasingly hazardous for the US to attack. So, war must come soon or the US will fade away without a single shot having to be fired. The US might simply accept fading away, but I doubt it...

There is not and will not be in the future any ability for Russia nor for China to destroy the US, without getting destroyed back. Nuclear deterrence is stable and will remain so in any conceivable technological and military future.

About risks of economic collapse, well they are clearly very real, and not only for the US, but starting a war against a major power would not block that collapse, rather it would accelerate it. I don't know if US leadership is deluded enough to believe differently. I suspect they are not that deluded. German power elites at the beginning of 20th century were deluded enough, granted, which is why they started that 1914 thingy, but at their time nuclear deterrence didn't exist therefore illusions could be more easily entertained.

About "fading away", well we are living the beginning of the end of the "unipolar period" which began after the end of the Cold War. So the US is already fading as a single Hegemon reigning on the planet. Fading as a major power, or even as the largest single power? Nothing is planned in advance, but that's (very) far from the sole scenario.

The world is presently becoming more multipolar, but that's not necessarily the last word on it. Russia wants that multipolar world, India too, France wouldn't mind (but for the timidity of our current president), Germany wouldn't mind too much... but the aspiring Hegemon may have other plans. Just like the current one, he probably sees the world's future in terms different than that of multipolarity.

Beijing, not Moscow, not even Washington, is the most important factor for the future of international politics. Again, nothing is planned in advance, but my feeling is that Chinese power elites do not want merely brilliant development of their country, they may not even be satisfied with a primus inter pares status, they want directing influence abroad, and since they have more and more the means for this kind of project, well they will get (part of) what they want, and also its consequence: a long and protracted conflict with the present Hegemon.

A conflict that would have the potential to make the world bipolar anew. Then the multipolar period would pass quickly, or even be a mere short-lived illusion on the way...

The Ukraine conflict is a foreign-policy disaster for the US because their plays and manipulations in that country have resulted in Russia switching position from neutral between America and China, to pro-China. Russia is not that powerful economy-wise (about 1/5th of China), and her military power should not be exaggerated, but it has significant influence on matters dear to America (Middle-East), its raw resources can decrease China's dependence on energy streams under US control, and it also has an often underestimated but real influence on other Europeans. The nightmare scenario for the US would be if that influence resulted in Europeans switching in the middle term from a pro-America to a neutral position in the conflict between the US and China. That, also, is not planned in advance, but the first signs of such a change (Athen's Tsipras...) must give reason to think to US strategists.

As for the last major power I've not cited, namely Japan, it's a safe bet Japanese leaders are following closely what happens in Beijing, and thinking a lot about that potential - or already begun? - long term protracted China-America conflict. Also: they probably don't like what they see. Other East Asians too seem to become more nervous about China's future actions: South Korea, also Vietnam which started a rapprochement with America - who would have thought?

East Asia is by the way an area where America's influence may endure as it is, or even increase. Yes the US are losing influence on the Middle-East and their influence on Europe is on shaky grounds, but to non-Chinese East Asians they must appear as "the devil you know". Not the worst of devils probably, if even Vietnamese have forgiven...

[noddy]

east asia isnt under any illusions as to china being the better hegemon instead of america, unlike the middle east, americas role in east asia and the south pacific has largely been neutral to beneficial to all concerned.

some people dont like hearing that but hey, i cant help that.

europe doesnt really count, they will stay peaceful until they cant, then they will go bezerk and butcher everything, about the only rough guess id make is 'be on the same side as the germans'