Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Russian Navy to Send Warships to Syria
95 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Test
Jul 10, 2012, 7:09:25 PM7/10/12
to
jonathan
Jul 10, 2012, 9:37:43 PM7/10/12
to
"Mark Test" <rightwin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dC2Lr.1975$wD4...@newsfe19.iad...
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9390177/Russia-sends-warships-to-Syria.html
Amphibious landing vessels???
Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
more weapons.
Putin is trying to flex his muscles, he just threatened Finland
against more NATO support, but it backfired, which
his support of Assad is sure to do also.
"Commander of Russia's armed forces warned Finns against
closer cooperation with NATO. As a result the NATO
resistance in Finland drops six percent."
http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/warships-sail-severomorsk-towards-syria-10-07
These are the five landing ships reported to be
on their way to Syria.
Large Landing Ship "Nikolay Filchenkov"
4600 ton displacement
300 troops plus 20 tanks
http://flot.sevastopol.info/eng/ship/amphibious/nikolay_filchenkov.htm
Large Landing Ship "Tsesar Kunikov"
http://flot.sevastopol.info/eng/ship/amphibious/cesar.htm
The large landing ship "Alexander Otrakovsky"
http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/strength/surfaceships/otrakovsky/
The lsrge landing ship "Kondopoga"
http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/strength/surfaceships/kondopoga/
The large landing ship "Saint George the Victorious"
s
Bill
Jul 11, 2012, 6:11:38 AM7/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:37:43 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Mark Test" <rightwin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dC2Lr.1975$wD4...@newsfe19.iad...
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9390177/Russia-sends-warships-to-Syria.html
>
>
>Amphibious landing vessels???
>
>Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
>from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
>on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
>Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
>more weapons.
You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
You use helicopters.
wrote:
>
>"Mark Test" <rightwin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dC2Lr.1975$wD4...@newsfe19.iad...
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9390177/Russia-sends-warships-to-Syria.html
>
>
>Amphibious landing vessels???
>
>Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
>from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
>on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
>Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
>more weapons.
ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
You use helicopters.
Paul J. Adam
Jul 11, 2012, 2:10:55 PM7/11/12
to
On 11/07/2012 11:11, Bill wrote:
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>
> You use helicopters.
We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>
> You use helicopters.
2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or
at least very few, helicopters used.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Bill
Jul 11, 2012, 4:33:34 PM7/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:10:55 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/07/2012 11:11, Bill wrote:
>> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
>> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>>
>> You use helicopters.
>
>We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
>2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or
>at least very few, helicopters used.
My understanding was that Operation HIGHBROW used helicopters ferrying
<paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/07/2012 11:11, Bill wrote:
>> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
>> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>>
>> You use helicopters.
>
>We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
>2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or
>at least very few, helicopters used.
people out to ships and other helicopters for onwards transportation
to Cyprus.
Paul J. Adam
Jul 11, 2012, 4:57:23 PM7/11/12
to
and then ILLUSTRIOUS came in (covered by GLOUCESTER) for the main
extraction followed by a quick dash out to Cyprus.
All fairly exciting at the time, although in the end nobody shot
anything at anybody near our units while they were doing this.
a425couple
Jul 12, 2012, 10:15:19 AM7/12/12
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Mark Test" <rightwin...@yahoo.com> wrote...
Certainly that is often done.
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
I do not necessarily agree.
If I had to get 1,000 people quickly out of an environment
where projectiles are haphazzardly flying around,
using a LCU or LCM8 (or the more modern equivalents)
would be a very valid option.
> "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Mark Test" <rightwin...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9390177/Russia-sends-warships-to-Syria.html
>>
>>Amphibious landing vessels???
>>Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
>>from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
>>on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
>>Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
>>more weapons.
>
> You use helicopters. (( for evacuation of civilians)
>>
>>Amphibious landing vessels???
>>Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
>>from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
>>on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
>>Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
>>more weapons.
>
Certainly that is often done.
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
If I had to get 1,000 people quickly out of an environment
where projectiles are haphazzardly flying around,
using a LCU or LCM8 (or the more modern equivalents)
would be a very valid option.
Message has been deleted
a425couple
Jul 12, 2012, 12:00:14 PM7/12/12
to
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
> using a LCU or LCM8 or LCM6 (or the more modern equivalents)
A long time ago, in a land far away, I was deeply involved
in a large number of military ship to shore, and shore to ship
operations (and separately some prior to, and some after that year).
The only non-hostile fatality that I know of was during
a bad storm, where the dangers were known, and accepted
by much higher authority (at, or close to Joint Chiefs of Staff).
It was decided that the risk, was overcome by benifit ratio.
And somewhat related to general subject, recently aboard
cruise ships I've seen a fair number of quite sizable
numbers of persons going ashore & returning using either
ship carried 'lighterage', or local venders.
With proper planning & staffing, IMHO, large numbers of
just average citizens can be 'fairly' safely moved.
And, just saying, helicopters can be vulnerable.
(Can one trouble maker with a RPG take a helo out
with all crew & passengers? Certainly - fair number have.
Can one troublemaker with a RPG take out a LCM6?
It seems less likely.)
> would be a very valid option.
Or, to expand a bit more,
A long time ago, in a land far away, I was deeply involved
in a large number of military ship to shore, and shore to ship
operations (and separately some prior to, and some after that year).
The only non-hostile fatality that I know of was during
a bad storm, where the dangers were known, and accepted
by much higher authority (at, or close to Joint Chiefs of Staff).
It was decided that the risk, was overcome by benifit ratio.
And somewhat related to general subject, recently aboard
cruise ships I've seen a fair number of quite sizable
numbers of persons going ashore & returning using either
ship carried 'lighterage', or local venders.
With proper planning & staffing, IMHO, large numbers of
just average citizens can be 'fairly' safely moved.
And, just saying, helicopters can be vulnerable.
(Can one trouble maker with a RPG take a helo out
with all crew & passengers? Certainly - fair number have.
Can one troublemaker with a RPG take out a LCM6?
It seems less likely.)
a425couple
Jul 12, 2012, 12:54:34 PM7/12/12
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> had in the area in, well, pretty much forever) merely to evacuate a
> few people that could just as easily get on airplanes and fly out?
Valid point Fred, as regards Russia.
For the USA, it is very valid to have a MEU
(Marine Expeditionary Unit, with it's BLT+,
Helo Squadron, & LSU) on it's ARG ships.
That gives a great variety of options for what
ever contingency could come up.
But, just instucting a large number of citizens to
fly out on 'normally schedulled' airlines, could take
many days, and that movement could trigger
an onslaught of others trying also to bail at same
time.
If the "shit hits the fan", it is nice to have ample
'security' personnel with you along with plenty
of short range transports and very high emergency
capacity ships.
So, I'm open to the possibility, that Russia (so far)
might be thinking the same.
(Does anybody have a guess at the number of
people that Russia might feel 'responsible for' in Syria?)
> "Paul J. Adam" <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
>>> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>>> You use helicopters.
>>
>>We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
>>2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON.
>>No, or at least very few, helicopters used.
>
> True, but do you generally send a 12 ship flotilla (the largest you've
>>> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
>>> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>>> You use helicopters.
>>
>>We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
>>2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON.
>>No, or at least very few, helicopters used.
>
> had in the area in, well, pretty much forever) merely to evacuate a
> few people that could just as easily get on airplanes and fly out?
Valid point Fred, as regards Russia.
For the USA, it is very valid to have a MEU
(Marine Expeditionary Unit, with it's BLT+,
Helo Squadron, & LSU) on it's ARG ships.
That gives a great variety of options for what
ever contingency could come up.
But, just instucting a large number of citizens to
fly out on 'normally schedulled' airlines, could take
many days, and that movement could trigger
an onslaught of others trying also to bail at same
time.
If the "shit hits the fan", it is nice to have ample
'security' personnel with you along with plenty
of short range transports and very high emergency
capacity ships.
So, I'm open to the possibility, that Russia (so far)
might be thinking the same.
(Does anybody have a guess at the number of
people that Russia might feel 'responsible for' in Syria?)
Fred J. McCoward
Jul 12, 2012, 4:48:31 PM7/12/12
to
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Fred J. McCoward" <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Fred J. McCall boasted:
>>>>
>>>> I'm no coward, anybody can verify I use my real name.
>>>
>>> Please post your address so we can verify.
>>
>>Fwed's tag "you are what you do when it counts", but he is afraid to
>>post his address, so if it ever really counted he would be running.
>>
>>Fwed can *talk* big on usenet...but he is *only* a talker.
>> ;-)
>
>
> Why don't you come see, Quiff?
Sure, what's the address.
(you pissing-in-your-pants big mouth coward)
;-)
> "Fred J. McCoward" <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Fred J. McCall boasted:
>>>>
>>>> I'm no coward, anybody can verify I use my real name.
>>>
>>> Please post your address so we can verify.
>>
>>Fwed's tag "you are what you do when it counts", but he is afraid to
>>post his address, so if it ever really counted he would be running.
>>
>>Fwed can *talk* big on usenet...but he is *only* a talker.
>> ;-)
>
>
> Why don't you come see, Quiff?
Sure, what's the address.
(you pissing-in-your-pants big mouth coward)
;-)
jonathan
Jul 12, 2012, 5:34:15 PM7/12/12
to
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jtmvg...@news6.newsguy.com...
> So, I'm open to the possibility, that Russia (so far) might be thinking
> the same. (Does anybody have a guess at the number of people that Russia
> might feel 'responsible for' in Syria?)
As for Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, about
100,000 Russian citizens currently reside in Syria."
http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=15388
Jim H.
Jul 12, 2012, 7:56:21 PM7/12/12
to
On Jul 11, 6:11 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:37:43 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Mark Test" <rightwinger_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:37:43 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:dC2Lr.1975$wD4...@newsfe19.iad...
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9390177/Ru...
>
> >Amphibious landing vessels???
>
> >Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
> >from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
> >on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
> >Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
> >more weapons.
>
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>
> You use helicopters.
Um, not always. I recall some news reel film from the Korean War of a
> >Amphibious landing vessels???
>
> >Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
> >from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
> >on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
> >Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
> >more weapons.
>
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>
> You use helicopters.
long line of Korean civilians being evac''d right off the beach on an
LST, walking up the bow ramp. I strongly suspect thay also used
smaller landing craft when we pulled back from the north after the
Chinese came in. I'll admit that a brief search didn't turn up
specific examples, and I'm too pooped from putting the generator back
into my little camper to devote much effort to it. But I did find
this one _really_ interesting example:
" Normally, LSTs had berthing and mess facilities for up to 250troops,
with a capacity of 550 for short voyages. But they were
essentiallylarge hollow boxes, and so in an emergency, could squeeze
in much largernumbers. One LST, for example, embarked over 10,000
refugees duringthe Heungnam evacuation."
Dunno if this was a USN, ROK, or leased Japanese merchie LST. Not that
it matters, but it'd be interesting to know.
(From 'Over the Beach: US Army Amphibious Operations in the Korean
War', http://www.scribd.com/doc/91749205/83/Evacuation-of-Wonsan-and-Seongjin
)
Of course, those were 'just' Koreans, but these are Russians, who may
not have as much regard for danger & life as we Westerners. 8)
Jim H.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Tom Willis
Jul 13, 2012, 3:41:44 AM7/13/12
to
> travel without adult supervision, anyway.
keep hiding you pissing-in-your-pants big mouth coward
;-)
Message has been deleted
dott.Piergiorgio
Jul 13, 2012, 11:36:02 AM7/13/12
to
Il 11/07/2012 03:37, jonathan ha scritto:
> The large landing ship "Saint George the Victorious"
I'm a bit surprised that russians have rehabilitated (political sense)
> The large landing ship "Saint George the Victorious"
the name of Georgi Pobedonosets....
(people whose known about the Potemkin mutiny outside the well-known
movie, should understand....)
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Tom Willis
Jul 14, 2012, 10:19:17 PM7/14/12
to
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> So you're not just a nymskull; you're an out and out raving loony.
>
> Again, if you're too stupid to find me you're not mentally mature
keep hiding you coward
;-)
>
> Again, if you're too stupid to find me you're not mentally mature
> enough to travel without adult supervision, anyway.
Son, if you believe that then I don't blame you for being afraid of me.
keep hiding you coward
;-)
Message has been deleted
Fred J. McCoward
Jul 16, 2012, 4:55:17 PM7/16/12
to
>
>
>>keep hiding you coward
>>;-)
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I'm 'hiding' by waving my arms and saying, "I'm right here". You
>
>>keep hiding you coward
>>;-)
>>
>
>
> being too stupid to find me doesn't mean I'm 'hiding'. It means
> you're stupid.
Post your address, you coward.
In all my years on usenet I've never seen anyone so afraid as McCall, and
the little coward is afraid of harmless little ol me.
hey fwed, i'm not coming to visit you
he he he
;-)
David E. Powell
Jul 16, 2012, 10:32:04 PM7/16/12
to
The Fake Professor wrote:
"Oh I see. Running away, eh? Come back here, I'll bite your legs off!"
;)
"Oh I see. Running away, eh? Come back here, I'll bite your legs off!"
;)
David E. Powell
Jul 16, 2012, 10:23:48 PM7/16/12
to
On Jul 11, 2:10 pm, "Paul J. Adam" <paul.j.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 11:11, Bill wrote:
>
> > You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> > ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>
> > You use helicopters.
>
> We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
> 2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or
> at least very few, helicopters used.
The Landing ships tend to support this theory, unless the Russians
> On 11/07/2012 11:11, Bill wrote:
>
> > You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> > ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>
> > You use helicopters.
>
> We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
> 2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or
> at least very few, helicopters used.
embarked troops and were keeping it quiet. (They could fly them on
aircraft if needed.)
If they wanted to do a stronger Naval Escort they would use destroyers
and cruisers.
It sounds from this fleet line up like a "Show the Flag" mission as
well as a chance to place evacuation assets if needed down the road.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages