I have to correct you on amphibious landing ships. 2 of Project 23900 ALS were laid down in Crimea in July of 2020. A single project 23900 ship displaces 30-40 thousand tons, carries up to 1000 marines, up to 75 vehicles and up to 16 Ka-52 helicopters.
Thank you sir. I'm aware the Russian navy is building new amphibious warfare ships, but from my understanding these two wouldn't be commissioned into the Russian Navy in 2022. It would be difficult to even finish these two the next year. Is that correct?
@@EurasiaNaval Yes, it is totally impossible to complete such a ship in 2 years, even for the most advanced navy shipyards in the world. Project 23900 are set to be completed in 2026-2027 and to pass all the state trials and be inducted into service by 2028-2029. My statement was in response to 17:22 mark in your video, where you say, that Russia has no need in such ships. It obviously does. The 23900 project is an ending to a "Mistral" purchase story, when Russia had payed France in 2011 to build 2 ships, but later France refused to hand them to Russia due to 2014 Ukrainian debacle. So Russia has sued France for breach of contract and not only got it`s money back, but also a bunch of technologies for building amphibious landing ships.
@@EurasiaNaval Also a comment on 5:16 in the video. Right now there is a 500 meter long drydock nearing completion or already complete in Russian Far East at "Zvezda" shipyard. In april 2020 bathoport for the drydock has been installed. Right now there are no orders for military vehicles to be built at "Zvezda", but with such capabilities we could eventually see an order to build a full scale supercarrier there - like project 23000 "Storm", or something similar.
I would not say Russia doesn't have requirement for large landing ship, they do which is why they try to buy Mistral, they just failed to acquire them.
Granted in actuality before the war it was 2.5 Slava cruisers, as the Moskva was barely able to move under its own power and had almost none of its systems operational.
Cruisers are an outdated type of ship. The frigates currently under construction are much more capable. As for the cruiser Moscow, it would never have been sunk without foreign help, so do not attribute this to Ukraine, this is the merit of NATO.
Very good vid. The highlight is that russian navy is mostly for self defense and with the great majority of assets for coastal use. Not many vessels for projection of force and going to attack other countries all over the world. Of course in time the oldest soviet era units will be replaced with the new higly effective small units. They are doing a great job in packing a lot of weapons in small ship that can be produced in a higher quantity at a lower price.
Russia has done the right thing by building submarines instead of wasting money on aircraft carriers, also the development of state of the art missiles, enables their corvettes and frigates, to do the job of larger vessels in other navy's.
@@EurasiaNaval you've seen the number of auxiliary fleet in both active & reserve just moored to the bay for years, lying unused, rusting away . . . especially US Navy . . . nearly €2.0 Bn approx is spent fixing them & then putting them back in reserve or as they say on standby to rust . . . ain't their own wallet, everyone loves to spend the tax payers money except the tax payers themselves who has to think before spending even $1
Subs : All Typhoons are now decomissioned including the Dmitri Donskoi which was used as a test plateform. All Delta 3 are waiting for scrap. The Delta 4 are in a very poor shape, maybe half operational. Two or three Oscar 2 are up for refit. Sierra 2, three of them restored to combat ready state (they are full titanium and incredibly expensive). No more Victor III are operational. They are scrapped with occidental money from Europe ans USA (funds are frozen but the subs are junk anyway). Many Akulas are totally outdated and there are no funds to refit them (when there were funds, they have been stolen by oligarcs, mafia or high ranked officers). The Kilos were potent but are now outdated and the Lada, meant to replace the Kilos and to be available for export are totally unreliable and suffer from several design errors (AIP, Batteries, etc...).
As a matter of fact, Sevmash has never been able to shape the blades of their subs properly. Even after smuggling some Toshiba CNC machines from Japan when they were under Intl. Embargo.
Russia should never have invaded Ukraine. Losing the Flagship of the Black Sea fleet, the ‘Moscow’, is without doubt a humiliation in the eyes of the world.
US should have never interfered in the Ukrainian politics in 2014. Ukraine shouldn't has any Nazis in the parliament and other sectors, there should be no discrimination and killing of civilians in Ukraine since 2014. There should be no biological weapon labs in Ukraine. There shouldn't have been any provocation for this war from Ukrainian side. US should have never invaded Iraq, Syria, Iraq, Libya, conducted interventions in Nicaragua and Yemen. NATO should not exist since it was created to oppose Soviet regime and USSR is no more. There should be no warmongers who earn billions on pentagon deals. But unfortunately those are not the cases. I can continue forever...
4:21 All of these soviet jump carriers had their Anti ship missiles removed to make more room in the hanger bay (PLAN never had them) and these are actually Ukrainian designed and built.
Russia was quite broke for about 20 years after 1991. It began recovering in the early 2010s or so. It has been rebuilding and modernizing the military and its former Soviet industrial base. Living standards have improved about 10x since the 1990s too. The country is in a rebuilding phase in several ways, not just military. My point is that Russia is not broke these days, so it can do a lot more than it could during the two decades following 1991 (many folks think Russia can not afford to maintain its ships etc -- that was true then, but far less so now). That 20 years of poverty and de-industrialization after the Cold War did a lot of damage to Russia. I worked at sea during those days with lots of Russians who were sending money home to their families, so I got to hear all about it. Very hard times. The rebuild of their economy, military and society will take a generation or more. Russia will not build a navy to match the USA, or even half match it. The USA likes to project sea power globally, so its navy gets a high percentage of US defence spending. Russian sea power as far as surface units are concerned is primarily meant to defend strategic maritime locations in Russian waters, e.g., the nuclear submarine bases around Murmansk and Kamchatka etc. They do not spend as much of their defence budget on it. Generally speaking, once the economy began recovering Russia modernized their nuclear and air defence missile forces first. Then the army and air force, which is ongoing right now. The surface fleet part of their naval forces kind of came last, although some modernizing work has been done at a moderate pace and they have a few new vessels etc. It's the navy's turn now, so we can expect to see naval procurement and modernization accelerate if the current trajectory continues, e.g., they are now ordering ships in larger batches etc. P.S. I am not sure how much longer the USA can afford its massive armed forces and all the defence billions it sends to key allies. They are now $35 trillion in debt and have not balanced their budget for several years, e.g., continually raising their debt ceiling. That debt is going to continue growing. They could go bankrupt if it continues. They can raise taxes and try to increase GDP, or they can make massive cuts to military and public spending. They might have to do a mix of both, because they can not keep going the way they are. Personally, I am expecting the US armed forces to shrink over the next decade. That might have an effect on their foreign policy. Maybe, or they will just revert to exercising global power on credit all over again.
Not enough to defeat a next-door country with NO navy. Like, having their only aircraft carrier always burning, and being the first to lose a Cruiser since the Falklands, and a Submarine since WW2
Is it true that Russia doesn't call its carrier an aircraft carrier, but some type of cruiser for international legal reasons? And, when you say that the Carrier is in Ukraine for refit, does that mean it's ported somewhere in Crimea which legally belongs to Ukraine, but is under control of Russia at present?
On first question: Russia classified, or at least used to classify (unsure if it still does), their aircraft carriers as 'aircraft-carrying cruisers' because the Montreux Convention that regulates the passage of warships through the Turkish straits into the Black Sea forbid aircraft carriers of greater than 15,000 tons, which basically covers all the aircraft carriers in service. But there are no restrictions on other capital ships (e.g. cruisers) belonging to other countries with coastline to the Black Sea. So, by calling its aicraft carriers 'aircraft-carrying cruisers', Russia can enter/exit Black Sea with them, which was particularly important back in USSR times because all of their carriers were built in the Mykolaiv Shipyard now in modern Ukraine (Ukraine might have renamed the city). To justify the cruiser designation, the Russians used to have offensive weapons (cruise missiles) installed on their carriers. No other signatories to the Montreux Convention have objected to Russia's designation, mainly because they know this is an important issue for Russia. On the second question: I don't think I said the Kuznetsov carrier is refitting in Ukraine - I just said it is refitting somewhere. I did say it and the Liaoning carrier were built in Ukraine. Maybe there's a mix-up, and perhaps the audio wasn't great which didn't help.
I think Russia wants to try to build two first, but they still haven't completed the design. At this stage, it's not certain if construction will move ahead.
One carrier unfit for sea. Just as well since carriers are big targets. US has spent too much on them . China making the same mistake. Russia has nuclear subs but not much else
The real question is why they bother with a battle fleet at all? For a huge country they are quite land locked. And what coastline they do have is frozen much of each year and almost all Russian foreign trading partners and military allies they can reach by land.
plenty of use in ukraine, and you wouldnt throw away the massive navy you inherited from the USSR. Iran barely has a navy and they arent super close with china so russia still needs to have some power in the ocean
There are many options here. Europe does not actually have its own combat-ready army, relying entirely on the United States. In the event of a conflict, Russia will need to cut supply routes from the United States to Europe. Further, if you look at the new NATO members Sweden and Finland, they also have no military significance without supplies by sea. And there is also a huge network of US military bases in the Pacific region.
@@definitelyfrank9341 Actually...Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Turkey and Ukraine would disagree. If the Russians hadn't lost their capital ship they might have an edge over the Turks...but not now. So, the answer is "No, Russia no longer owns the Black Sea".
@@definitelyfrank9341 Frank...maybe you missed the entire Cold War, I didn't. From the mid-1930's until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Black Sea was a "Russian Lake". There's a relevant notion from Old English Law that states "possession is nine points of the law". Once the Soviet Union broke up, things started going South for the Russians. Now things are not just going South but sideways as well.
Russia can control the Black Sea. And sink everything that floats there without leaving the port. But this will mean war with NATO. So far, Russia is not interested in a direct war with NATO, although if I were NATO, I would not hope that they would be able to win.
@@MlLKMAN 'I can't prove you wrong because I'm too stupid, so i'll just tell you to prove yourself wrong, and that'll prove me right.' That's gotta be the most pathetic thing I have ever expected to hear from a NAFO bot. It really says a lot about your intelligence level -- or rather, your stupidity level.
#2 army is being devastated by a 3rd rate army and the #3 navy has had at least 6 ships sunk, including a heavy cruiser by a country that has no navy. I think everyone has far overrated the Russian armed services. Corruption and lack of training can't be made up for by equipment. If you don't know how to use it or it does work do to neglect then the equipment is nothing more than a target or heavy shit to drag around. I'm not criticizing you I'm sure these things could have been more deadly but no expert knew they'd be so ineffective.
This didn’t age well after Ukraine defeated them handily. The most weak undisciplined navy in the world. I have seen pictures of their ship bathroom the filthiest thing I have ever seen.
As filthy as the sooty, black filth that Proud! (😂) Admiral Kuznetsov belches from its tarry, black bowels when excited? 😂😂 That image-conscious Russia allows that embarrassment to sputter around the seven seas says a lot about the state of their navy and their ability/willingness to invest in modernization. I mean, come on. It's essentially a coal fired carrier. (I know. Not really coal. "Mazut" is technically cleaner than coal. I think. BUT, technology-wise.....)
Apparently losing hundreds of square kilometers of territory (on the defending side by the way) is considered winning by the west. Shows how pathetic they are. Cope harder, mate.
Let's hope all of them have a nice Kursk case scenario on the assembly line on their merry trip to Tartarus, hopefully, we can get the black box to hear their lamentations, as their start killing off one another trying to survive, may they sink ell and feed the fishes,
That's what I had been saying why don't they build another aircraft carrier Russia should get his s*** together it's really funny China is ahead of them I find that hard to believe
@@professorx2607 And building a carrier means you're building the entire task group? a carrier alone might cost 2-3 billion in Russia but you also need to build 3-5 destroyers and frigates and support ships and navel support ports and drydocks and crews.... that's not something on the priority list right now.
They don't need aircraft carrier because they are not trying to project power around the world. It's cheaper to build missiles that can sink them than it is to build them.
The thing here is when you compare Russia to America, you also need to count the British, Scandinavian, French, and Itaiian. This channel mentions ships Russia does not have. The number of operational subs is much lower, this reeks of Russian propaganda.
Your channel is underrated.
I have to correct you on amphibious landing ships. 2 of Project 23900 ALS were laid down in Crimea in July of 2020. A single project 23900 ship displaces 30-40 thousand tons, carries up to 1000 marines, up to 75 vehicles and up to 16 Ka-52 helicopters.
Thank you sir. I'm aware the Russian navy is building new amphibious warfare ships, but from my understanding these two wouldn't be commissioned into the Russian Navy in 2022. It would be difficult to even finish these two the next year. Is that correct?
@@EurasiaNaval Yes, it is totally impossible to complete such a ship in 2 years, even for the most advanced navy shipyards in the world.
Project 23900 are set to be completed in 2026-2027 and to pass all the state trials and be inducted into service by 2028-2029.
My statement was in response to 17:22 mark in your video, where you say, that Russia has no need in such ships. It obviously does.
The 23900 project is an ending to a "Mistral" purchase story, when Russia had payed France in 2011 to build 2 ships, but later France refused to hand them to Russia due to 2014 Ukrainian debacle. So Russia has sued France for breach of contract and not only got it`s money back, but also a bunch of technologies for building amphibious landing ships.
@@EurasiaNaval Also a comment on 5:16 in the video. Right now there is a 500 meter long drydock nearing completion or already complete in Russian Far East at "Zvezda" shipyard. In april 2020 bathoport for the drydock has been installed. Right now there are no orders for military vehicles to be built at "Zvezda", but with such capabilities we could eventually see an order to build a full scale supercarrier there - like project 23000 "Storm", or something similar.
@@dmitriyparfenov Noted. Thanks for the info, sir. I really want to do more vids on the Russian Navy, although on both old and new ships.
@@EurasiaNaval they also have the worlds largest LCACS the Zubr
Well done! I've done a lot of research on Russian Naval power, and this is consistent with what I've learned over the years. Liked and subscribed!
Glad you liked it, sir
Yes this dude and channel is legit.
I would not say Russia doesn't have requirement for large landing ship, they do which is why they try to buy Mistral, they just failed to acquire them.
Two slava class cruisers now ;)
Granted in actuality before the war it was 2.5 Slava cruisers, as the Moskva was barely able to move under its own power and had almost none of its systems operational.
What about K-329 Belgorod nuclear submarine, the carrier of Poseidon nuclear drones?
A Slava Class came to Boston when I was a teen. The Russian sailors were very nice.
How did they act? Did any of them speak english?
Great video. Looks like Russian need many more frigates to replace old vessels and back to blue sea.
keep up the great content bro
Thank you, friend
4 cruisers. Russia has 4 cruisers and the fifth recently refitted as a artificial reef to benefit the lush underwaterworld of the Black Sea.
Как бы Британия не превратилась в подводную горную цепь
Clowns do like to laugh a lot
Cruisers are an outdated type of ship. The frigates currently under construction are much more capable. As for the cruiser Moscow, it would never have been sunk without foreign help, so do not attribute this to Ukraine, this is the merit of NATO.
It is the Merit of Ukraine. Deal with it.@@KonstantinVinnichenko
The missile used was a Ukrainian update of a Soviet design.
Underrated channel
Very good vid. The highlight is that russian navy is mostly for self defense and with the great majority of assets for coastal use. Not many vessels for projection of force and going to attack other countries all over the world. Of course in time the oldest soviet era units will be replaced with the new higly effective small units. They are doing a great job in packing a lot of weapons in small ship that can be produced in a higher quantity at a lower price.
Thanks for that
Russia has done the right thing by building submarines instead of wasting money on aircraft carriers, also the development of state of the art missiles, enables their corvettes and frigates, to do the job of larger vessels in other navy's.
Everything is much simpler. Aircraft carriers are always weapons of attack, and the entire Russian doctrine is defensive in nature.
At 10:00 :: worth mentioning that Toshiba got cancelled by the US
both the Russian Navy & U.S. Navy seriously needs to cut down it's existing auxiliary fleet by as much as 85% . . .
Interesting thought - what makes you say that?
@@EurasiaNaval you've seen the number of auxiliary fleet in both active & reserve just moored to the bay for years, lying unused, rusting away . . . especially US Navy . . . nearly €2.0 Bn approx is spent fixing them & then putting them back in reserve or as they say on standby to rust . . . ain't their own wallet, everyone loves to spend the tax payers money except the tax payers themselves who has to think before spending even $1
I see, thanks for the detailed comment!
Why was there a type 45 destroyer in this video?
Where?
@@definitelyfrank9341around the 3 minutes 15 seconds mark.
Subs : All Typhoons are now decomissioned including the Dmitri Donskoi which was used as a test plateform. All Delta 3 are waiting for scrap. The Delta 4 are in a very poor shape, maybe half operational. Two or three Oscar 2 are up for refit. Sierra 2, three of them restored to combat ready state (they are full titanium and incredibly expensive). No more Victor III are operational. They are scrapped with occidental money from Europe ans USA (funds are frozen but the subs are junk anyway). Many Akulas are totally outdated and there are no funds to refit them (when there were funds, they have been stolen by oligarcs, mafia or high ranked officers). The Kilos were potent but are now outdated and the Lada, meant to replace the Kilos and to be available for export are totally unreliable and suffer from several design errors (AIP, Batteries, etc...).
As a matter of fact, Sevmash has never been able to shape the blades of their subs properly. Even after smuggling some Toshiba CNC machines from Japan when they were under Intl. Embargo.
Severodvinsk?, Losharik?, Krasnodar? Where do they figure into your......figuring?😉 Not trying to argue. I'm genuinely curious.
Not accurate even 2 years ago.
Who else is watching this after the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine? 🧐
Me. What’s your point?
And me
You put a [icture of a Udalay Class 619, where you meant to put a picture of a Sovremeny Class.
I see, thanks
Russia should never have invaded Ukraine.
Losing the Flagship of the Black Sea fleet, the ‘Moscow’, is without doubt a humiliation in the eyes of the world.
US should have never interfered in the Ukrainian politics in 2014. Ukraine shouldn't has any Nazis in the parliament and other sectors, there should be no discrimination and killing of civilians in Ukraine since 2014. There should be no biological weapon labs in Ukraine. There shouldn't have been any provocation for this war from Ukrainian side. US should have never invaded Iraq, Syria, Iraq, Libya, conducted interventions in Nicaragua and Yemen. NATO should not exist since it was created to oppose Soviet regime and USSR is no more. There should be no warmongers who earn billions on pentagon deals. But unfortunately those are not the cases.
I can continue forever...
@@sergevtorino Russian troll 🤡. 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Scratch out a few of those hulls on that info graphic 2:00
Ukraine getting absolutely crushed by Russia. Ukie trolls be like: “Yeah, but an old ship sank, Ha-Ha!”
@@daledykes9253 This comment didn't age well. The Orcs are getting owned by the farming village next door. Slava Ukraini!
4:21 All of these soviet jump carriers had their Anti ship missiles removed to make more room in the hanger bay (PLAN never had them) and these are actually Ukrainian designed and built.
The 30 aircraft is actually the increased number provided by the deletion of the ASM launch tubes just behind the ski jump.
Did you know the Nimitz carriers are actually Virginian design and built? Doesn't seem to make sence.
@@lugerunUkraine is a sovereign nation. Go cope.
I have always respected the Russians and their military.
This comment didn't age well
Shame your mom cant say the same about you
And they certainly failed you
Russia was quite broke for about 20 years after 1991. It began recovering in the early 2010s or so. It has been rebuilding and modernizing the military and its former Soviet industrial base. Living standards have improved about 10x since the 1990s too. The country is in a rebuilding phase in several ways, not just military. My point is that Russia is not broke these days, so it can do a lot more than it could during the two decades following 1991 (many folks think Russia can not afford to maintain its ships etc -- that was true then, but far less so now).
That 20 years of poverty and de-industrialization after the Cold War did a lot of damage to Russia. I worked at sea during those days with lots of Russians who were sending money home to their families, so I got to hear all about it. Very hard times. The rebuild of their economy, military and society will take a generation or more.
Russia will not build a navy to match the USA, or even half match it. The USA likes to project sea power globally, so its navy gets a high percentage of US defence spending. Russian sea power as far as surface units are concerned is primarily meant to defend strategic maritime locations in Russian waters, e.g., the nuclear submarine bases around Murmansk and Kamchatka etc. They do not spend as much of their defence budget on it.
Generally speaking, once the economy began recovering Russia modernized their nuclear and air defence missile forces first. Then the army and air force, which is ongoing right now. The surface fleet part of their naval forces kind of came last, although some modernizing work has been done at a moderate pace and they have a few new vessels etc. It's the navy's turn now, so we can expect to see naval procurement and modernization accelerate if the current trajectory continues, e.g., they are now ordering ships in larger batches etc.
P.S. I am not sure how much longer the USA can afford its massive armed forces and all the defence billions it sends to key allies. They are now $35 trillion in debt and have not balanced their budget for several years, e.g., continually raising their debt ceiling. That debt is going to continue growing. They could go bankrupt if it continues. They can raise taxes and try to increase GDP, or they can make massive cuts to military and public spending. They might have to do a mix of both, because they can not keep going the way they are. Personally, I am expecting the US armed forces to shrink over the next decade. That might have an effect on their foreign policy. Maybe, or they will just revert to exercising global power on credit all over again.
Try Be Fair For All Parties
Not enough to defeat a next-door country with NO navy.
Like, having their only aircraft carrier always burning, and being the first to lose a Cruiser since the Falklands, and a Submarine since WW2
Thanks agaiy
Is it true that Russia doesn't call its carrier an aircraft carrier, but some type of cruiser for international legal reasons? And, when you say that the Carrier is in Ukraine for refit, does that mean it's ported somewhere in Crimea which legally belongs to Ukraine, but is under control of Russia at present?
On first question: Russia classified, or at least used to classify (unsure if it still does), their aircraft carriers as 'aircraft-carrying cruisers' because the Montreux Convention that regulates the passage of warships through the Turkish straits into the Black Sea forbid aircraft carriers of greater than 15,000 tons, which basically covers all the aircraft carriers in service. But there are no restrictions on other capital ships (e.g. cruisers) belonging to other countries with coastline to the Black Sea. So, by calling its aicraft carriers 'aircraft-carrying cruisers', Russia can enter/exit Black Sea with them, which was particularly important back in USSR times because all of their carriers were built in the Mykolaiv Shipyard now in modern Ukraine (Ukraine might have renamed the city). To justify the cruiser designation, the Russians used to have offensive weapons (cruise missiles) installed on their carriers. No other signatories to the Montreux Convention have objected to Russia's designation, mainly because they know this is an important issue for Russia.
On the second question: I don't think I said the Kuznetsov carrier is refitting in Ukraine - I just said it is refitting somewhere. I did say it and the Liaoning carrier were built in Ukraine. Maybe there's a mix-up, and perhaps the audio wasn't great which didn't help.
lider class how much will come and when?
I think Russia wants to try to build two first, but they still haven't completed the design. At this stage, it's not certain if construction will move ahead.
Lider probably never, preffered is project 22350 and 22350M, which is logical and rational.
Have y9u seen their subs made of titanium, enough said!
That didn't age well
8:09 those are both Udaloy 1s not sovremenny
Ukraine converting more and more Russian ships into single-use submarines.
Great Naval power of yesteryears, decaying relics of today. Without Nuclear weapons, 🇷🇺 is irrelevant.
come and try/
One carrier unfit for sea. Just as well since carriers are big targets. US has spent too much on them . China making the same mistake. Russia has nuclear subs but not much else
Carriers is still the best neval force projection tools. Especially against weaker countries.
like Gaza strip...
A US carrier is deployed as part of a fleet, not as a single ship.
😂😂😂 The title of this vid sure hasn't aged well!
Huh?
Si siguen en operación especial..con Ucrania.
Perderán toda la flota rusa en el Mar Negro
Who else is watching this after Russia pulled up to Cuba
Mighty S500? 😂 Anything with the term mighty doesn't match up to the Russian Navy, outside of the Kirov or the now decomissioned Typhoon class hulls.
2 Slava cruisers left. The Ukrainians sank the Moskva.
The real question is why they bother with a battle fleet at all? For a huge country they are quite land locked. And what coastline they do have is frozen much of each year and almost all Russian foreign trading partners and military allies they can reach by land.
plenty of use in ukraine, and you wouldnt throw away the massive navy you inherited from the USSR. Iran barely has a navy and they arent super close with china so russia still needs to have some power in the ocean
There are many options here. Europe does not actually have its own combat-ready army, relying entirely on the United States. In the event of a conflict, Russia will need to cut supply routes from the United States to Europe. Further, if you look at the new NATO members Sweden and Finland, they also have no military significance without supplies by sea. And there is also a huge network of US military bases in the Pacific region.
Next up on video titles that didn’t age well.
This Video has´nt aged well...
If nato strikes russia, they destroy the pure of ocean
Not the number of ship but firepower. Russia navy able to destroy this world if it wants to. The other navy that can do that is US navy.
China Man EMPIRE vs Boat EMPIRE =Russia Lose Home On Map Is Fair Yep
The Russian can't secure their Black Sea...and you think they're punching above their weight ?
The entire black sea isn't owned by Russia? The fuck?
@@definitelyfrank9341 Actually...Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Turkey and Ukraine would disagree. If the Russians hadn't lost their capital ship they might have an edge over the Turks...but not now. So, the answer is "No, Russia no longer owns the Black Sea".
@@brianfoley4328 They never fucking did. You don't get to steal territory *just* because you have a stronger army.
@@definitelyfrank9341 Frank...maybe you missed the entire Cold War, I didn't. From the mid-1930's until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Black Sea was a "Russian Lake". There's a relevant notion from Old English Law that states "possession is nine points of the law". Once the Soviet Union broke up, things started going South for the Russians. Now things are not just going South but sideways as well.
Russia can control the Black Sea. And sink everything that floats there without leaving the port. But this will mean war with NATO. So far, Russia is not interested in a direct war with NATO, although if I were NATO, I would not hope that they would be able to win.
I understand....I mean....I guess.....you're right.....technically....you DO have to count Kuznetsov....somehow....somewhere.....😂
Do an updated one now that some Russian ships have been sunk by Ukraine.
Only one or two ships have been sunk.
@@definitelyfrank9341😂😂😂😂😂 are you sure about that 😅?
@@MlLKMANYeah. Try and prove me wrong.
@definitelyfrank9341 how about you go and research it yourself 😆
@@MlLKMAN 'I can't prove you wrong because I'm too stupid, so i'll just tell you to prove yourself wrong, and that'll prove me right.'
That's gotta be the most pathetic thing I have ever expected to hear from a NAFO bot. It really says a lot about your intelligence level -- or rather, your stupidity level.
💙💙
this video dident age well
Huh?
#2 army is being devastated by a 3rd rate army and the #3 navy has had at least 6 ships sunk, including a heavy cruiser by a country that has no navy. I think everyone has far overrated the Russian armed services. Corruption and lack of training can't be made up for by equipment. If you don't know how to use it or it does work do to neglect then the equipment is nothing more than a target or heavy shit to drag around. I'm not criticizing you I'm sure these things could have been more deadly but no expert knew they'd be so ineffective.
You have been watching propaganda on your TV. Russia is easily beating Ukraine.
in dreams
This didn’t age well after Ukraine defeated them handily. The most weak undisciplined navy in the world. I have seen pictures of their ship bathroom the filthiest thing I have ever seen.
As filthy as the sooty, black filth that Proud! (😂) Admiral Kuznetsov belches from its tarry, black bowels when excited? 😂😂 That image-conscious Russia allows that embarrassment to sputter around the seven seas says a lot about the state of their navy and their ability/willingness to invest in modernization. I mean, come on. It's essentially a coal fired carrier. (I know. Not really coal. "Mazut" is technically cleaner than coal. I think. BUT, technology-wise.....)
Apparently losing hundreds of square kilometers of territory (on the defending side by the way) is considered winning by the west. Shows how pathetic they are.
Cope harder, mate.
Remember when the russian navy used to dominate the black sea? 😂
Let's hope all of them have a nice Kursk case scenario on the assembly line on their merry trip to Tartarus, hopefully, we can get the black box to hear their lamentations, as their start killing off one another trying to survive, may they sink ell and feed the fishes,
Their planes and missiles are hypersonic!!
This has aged like milk 😂
You mean... How strong WAS the Russian navy?! (RIP)
Russia needs more aircraft carriers is obviously, I don't understand why they don't build one yet make fighter jets...
Part of the reason is that treaty for the black sea restricting capital ships like carriers. But that's just part of it.
That's what I had been saying why don't they build another aircraft carrier Russia should get his s*** together it's really funny China is ahead of them I find that hard to believe
@@professorx2607 And building a carrier means you're building the entire task group? a carrier alone might cost 2-3 billion in Russia but you also need to build 3-5 destroyers and frigates and support ships and navel support ports and drydocks and crews.... that's not something on the priority list right now.
@@jerrychan7191 Russia wants a cost effective and asymmetrical approach to their military affairs. Testing for what works and what dosen't.
They don't need aircraft carrier because they are not trying to project power around the world. It's cheaper to build missiles that can sink them than it is to build them.
All this is:
First - False information
Second - Obsolete information
Well, why - in general, the composition of the fleet is given quite correctly, adjusted for time.
@@KonstantinVinnichenko yes, you're right! I didn't check the date of the publication.
AI generated propaganda, probably by China - funny accent: UK British w/ overtones of Aussie dialects.
Russian navy - painted floating rust..
He is born and raised in Taiwan, dumb fuck.
Smartest pro ukrainian 💀
Russian warship Caesar Kunikov is promoted to submarine.👏💪
They don't need to refit it sarap it is juck
Scrap which one?
Your video is a load of old dribble...
As everything Russian - extremely overrated and suffers from lack of budget and modern tech.
How do you take thousands of kilometers of enemy territory with ineffective equipment? You make zero fucking sense.
@@definitelyfrank9341how do you loose huge portions of your standing military in single assaults with “good equipment”
@@definitelyfrank9341but let’s talk navy.
@@definitelyfrank9341do you really think the Russian navy could rival the US navy?
@@BoiStudio You seem to be under the impression that for equipment to be considered effective, it must be un-killable.
I wish you luck on your future.
The thing here is when you compare Russia to America, you also need to count the British, Scandinavian, French, and Itaiian. This channel mentions ships Russia does not have. The number of operational subs is much lower, this reeks of Russian propaganda.
Lol
🤣