Originally posted by GScholz
I must question your conclusions since the Kuznetsov just recently put to sea on a one-month deployment carrying 24 newly upgraded Su-33's and a wing of Su-25's. She is escorted by 2 cruisers, 6 destroyers and 2 nuke subs. The Russian navy has currently more than 40 ships at sea. 15 ships in the Med alone and a flotilla playing war games with the French.
Lets examine cold war figures as a comparison.
During the peak of the Cold War - the US had 6 CVN's, 6 CV's, 50 Cruisers of both Nuclear and Conventional, 38 Destroyers and 35 Fast Frigates or Guided Missile boats, Unknown number of Escorts and Support Vessles, 0 Diesel submarines 87 Fast attacks and 21 Boomers.
The Russians, had 4CV's, 23 Cruisers, 36 Destroyers, 134 Fast Frigates and 139 Fast Attack Frigates, 129 Escorts, 104 Diesel Submarines, 92 Fast Attacks and 54 Boomers from the Delta Class up through Typhoon.
Now - even post Cold war. If you examine how much the US spends on its armed forces - you'll be a little shocked.
Selected Countries Military Budget
($Billions)
United States 399.1
Russia* 65.0
China* 47.0
Japan 42.6
United Kingdom 38.4
France 29.5
Germany 24.9
Saudi Arabia 21.3
Italy 19.4
India 15.6
South Korea 14.1
Brazil* 10.7
Taiwan* 10.7
Israel 10.6
Spain 8.4
Australia 7.6
Canada 7.6
Netherlands 6.6
Turkey 5.8
Mexico 5.9
Kuwait* 3.9
Ukraine 5.0
Iran* 4.8
Singapore 4.8
Sweden 4.5
Egypt* 4.4
Norway 3.8
Greece 3.5
Poland 3.5
Argentina* 3.3
United Arab Emirates* 3.1
Colombia* 2.9
Belgium 2.7
Pakistan* 2.6
Denmark 2.4
Vietnam 2.4
North Korea* 2.1
Czech Republic 1.6
Iraq* 1.4
Philippines 1.4
Portugal 1.3
Libya* 1.2
Hungary 1.1
Syria 1.0
Cuba* 0.8
Sudan* 0.6
Yugoslavia 0.7
Luxembourg 0.2
If you added every single NATO member up - it would not equal 1/2 of what the US spends annually. These figures are current as of 2002. Keep in mind its not a conscript military like Russia's - we spend over 5 times as much as Russia - who is the runner up to keep everything working.
They may have more vessles on the books - but if we have fiscial issues keeping our blue water fleet ready to roll with 399 billion budget - I find a bit hard to grasp the notion that Russia is anywhere in the same ball park. As for the Northern fleet - here's an except of a study I did.
"From 1945-1991, the Soviet Union produced 249 submarines powered by nuclear propulsion and 492 dependent on diesel-electric power. To put this in perspective, over the same time period the United States built only 43 diesel and 169 nuclear powered submarines. The Soviet Union maintained competitiveness with US Navy during the Cold War primarily because of their nuclear submarine advantage. For the first few decades of submarine production, the Soviet emphasis was on quantity manufactured rather than quality of product, and even as better ships were built, older ones were kept running past their useful lifetimes. Facilities were not constructed to handle storing out-of-service ships, and there was very little long-term planning on the future of these nuclear submarines and their spent fuel. At the end of the Cold War, Russia had no need for such a large nuclear fleet and no infrastructure to decommission the vessels. As of late 2002, 191 of the 249 were out of service.
Russia’s navy maintains two fleets: the Northern Fleet (off the Kola Peninsula, the part of Russia adjacent to Norway and Finland), and the Pacific Fleet (on the Pacific Ocean, primarily along the Sea of Japan.) Although both fleets are important, the Northern fleet has 2/3 of the nuclear submarines and a larger support infrastructure. My research only addresses the larger Northern Fleet because it poses a greater threat, and has substantially more security issues. The Kola Peninsula where the Northern Fleet is based has the greatest concentration of nuclear reactors in the world and the world’s largest amount of radioactive waste. My examination of the Northern Fleet as a security and environmental threat will analyze the decommissioning of the submarines and the future of the spent fuel handling and storage technically, politically, environmentally, and economically.
The nuclear situation in the Kola Peninsula is multi-dimensional. The three biggest hazards from the Fleet’s spent fuel are radiation exposure, radioactive contamination, and proliferation. Many of the retired submarines are just sitting around with spent fuel inside, waiting to be dismantled. These vessels are great proliferation risks, as the highly enriched uranium they contain is a necessary component of any atomic weapon. Minatom (the Russian Ministry for Nuclear Energy) reported in 2002 that at least 32 of the laid up submarines “are in a bad shape and are in danger of sinking.” All 32 submarines still have spent nuclear fuel in their reactors. As of May 2001, 74 of the 170 submarines awaiting dismantlement still contained nuclear fuel. There are two additional submarines that have had accidents in their reactors and are too dangerous to disassemble now. Current plans will put them in an $18-million shelter until the fission in their reactors ends in approximately 300 years. The Kola Peninsula poses huge pollution threats to its neighboring Scandinavian countries. For example, one site contains more than 4000 cubic meters of solid radioactive waste all placed outdoors, without protection from precipitation. There are too many ways that public exposure and environmental contamination are possible given current situations. As home to the largest amount of radioactive waste in the world, Russia’s economic woes and political turmoil have only compounded problems on the Peninsula where leaking facilities and vessels, haphazard security and an uncertain future loom ominously.
There are several bright spots in the future of Russia’s nuclear situation. The EU, Norway and the US are committed to improving nuclear security. The US has currently contributed through the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Agency. Since 1996, the US has funded the dismantlement of 16 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and is willing to pay for the dismantlement of 25 SSBNs in total. Also, under the new G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Material of Mass Destruction, up to $20 billion has been pledged over the next ten years for projects in Russia specifically including the dismantlement of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the disposition of fissile material. Mismanaged facilities and political corruption have hindered international efforts. The Russians have also maintained secrecy about many technical details that could improve international efforts as well. Hopefully, proper management of new economic commitments will alleviate the potentially disasterous security and environmental risks."
