Posted on 09/07/2008 2:55:40 AM PDT by DJ Elliott
The Russians are the only other nation to mount a very successful and complex space programme. We should not underestimate their abilities.
Someone said that Russia is never as weak as She seems or as strong as She seems
Good comments. I agree.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
...and they plan to build these in Russian shipyards using Russian welders?
And there are costs in other than Dollars or Rubles. Not that I care any more about the cost to them than they do, but a couple of the names on our debit sheet were shipmates of mine.
According to this list, Russia's defense spending is $40 billion, or about 2% of their GDP -- the same as the EU spends.
If Russia spent the same percent on defense as the US (4.3%) it would more than double.
So, yes, I'd suppose an extra $40 billion per year might buy them a few more aircraft carriers.
It might also motivate the EU to take a second look at their own defense budgets. The EU's 2% on defense equates to $312 billion. If that number were to, say, double, it could purchase a LOT of military equipment.
My only point here is that if Russia wants to fire up a new arms race, there's no way Russia can win that.
Russia has managed to seriously increase its level of military spending, but it would be exceedingly foolish for them to try and match the West. Oil/gas wealth or no oil/gas wealth, they simply do not have the financial clout to match the West ship for ship.
If I were them I'd stop the saber-rattling and continue building my economy.
Well, there is merit to what you say. However, the full story of the Soviet space program has yet to be written I think. While our program was based upon technology, theirs was based upon brute force, huge rockets, low technology, and I suspect if the truth were known, at considerable loss of life. Also, keep in mind that the Soviets were never able to put people on the moon - had to abandon this endeavor much to their chagrin...
The T-34 and the AK-47 are very good examples of Russian technology - simply, but devastatingly effective.
You could call it brute force, but the Russians could come up with a simple but effective way of building carriers if they really mean business.
“You could call it brute force, but the Russians could come up with a simple but effective way of building carriers if they really mean business.”
About the T-34 and the AK-47; yep, good examples both of simple but effective weapons - btw, isn't the Military Channel great? Watch it quite often as well. However, the most recent reincarnation of the T-34 is the T-74. If you do indeed watch the Military Channel you well know how it fared in both Gulf wars against the Abrams. Concerning the AK-47; while it is very reliable the ballistics is about the same as the 30-30 Winchester, trajectory drops about one foot at one hundred yards. But, it is ok for house to house urban work. Being a Vietnam Vet, I am not however advocating the M-16 over it. The M-16 certainly had it's problems back in the day. But, perhaps over the past forty years it's been improved, couldn't say though.
Back to the carrier discussion; Yep, perhaps the Soviets could build a jump jet type of carrier or a helicopter platformed carrier. But, a Nimitz class carrier, nope, would have to see it to believe it...
...It might also motivate the EU to take a second look at their own defense budgets. The EU’s 2% on defense equates to $312 billion...
Misleading, as the EU doesn’t set the defence expenditure for the nations in the bloc. That is the EU average. There are nations who far exceed that figure, and other nations that fall below it too.
So if we are talking about the British, French and Germans we have more than enough to deter a Russians attack. Two nuclear states in the big three if you forgot.
True. If we look at military spending % of GDP, of the top five European countries, including NATO member Turkey:
The total of these five comes to $256 billion, compared to Russia's $43 billion.
Of course, we can't say what those countries are actually getting for all that money, (might be nothing more than social welfare dressed up in uniforms!). But it looks serious enough to give Russia pause.
Finally, for perspective, US military spending pre-War On Terror was about the same % as France & UK now, but these days up to 4.3%.
Good statistics. I can only speak for the uk, but we are certainly getting lots of lovely new kit for the Armed Forces. 3.3% of GDP well spent I’d say.
Galling though that the French are seemingly spending more than us?!!!
Then again, they need to get their stuff up to scratch.
I'm currently reading an abridged version of Churchill's WWII memoirs, now on "The Gathering Storm," to match up with Homer J Simpson's postings of daily news reports from 1938.
Somewhere I read that in 1938, both Britain and Germany were spending about 15% of GDP on defense, and France could field 100 army divisions. So, we are nowhere near those levels today, and hopefully will never need to be again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.