What country... big or small is self sufficient?
SO many to name. Countries that could sustain a "blockade" in war and not diminish their combat capability ,Russia is self sufficient top 3 world producer of grain ,Gold ,diamonds,Uranium,Titanium ,many other rare materials ,they also have fish ,Water etc..and produce almost everything they need for a war. major power in energy ,Gas Oil ,Steel Iron metals . Aside that they are connected/bordering with Many very agricultural nations too ,and All south americans Nations are self sufficient you can't blockade them either.. Navy blockades only works against small Nations ,specially if not bordering allies. but can't blockade Big ones in most cases.. or small ones like Ecuador is small one you can't blockade them because bordering allies. So not possible unless you blockade all south america. Simply give up your silly blockade argument.
If I were to say that all of the combined strength of NATO attacking one tiny country for a month would leave that countries military force in tatters... well ask Serbia and Kosovo about that... IADS structure largely still intact after over a month and something like 13 MBTs destroyed! So much for air power.
So you think it will have been any different if Serbia had a powerful NAVY,,,?
OMG epic fail analogy. like everything else you say.
If NATO unite with all their navies ,against a small nation like Serbia its navy will have been destroyed in Minutes. And not even using any warship. just airforce from Italy or any neighboring country,to not expose their navies and there you go all your precious navy billions wasted. they will not have a chance Unless
they have nukes and very capable strong Airforce with strong air defences and Oniks/Yakhonts missiles fired from land if needed.. The advantage of firing missiles from Land over navy is that Land doesn't sink and navy can sink. You could destroy a Sam site in land , and it could be replaced with missiles the next day. You can't say the same about navy. And NATO will never go in an offensive war if they not attacked ,that the cost of winning will not be worth of the consequences. And Remember NATO failed in Korean War with all their super ultra mega powerful navies..kicked from North korea against a nation with ZERO navy.
You can seriously damage Russias economy by sanctions and trade restrictions at her ports... a strong navy ensures that is not possible, but a weak one does not.You need a navy to enforce such sanctions... how do you police the trade... how do you check no one is cheating?
Simply only an ignorant can believe you can blockade Russia with a navy.
Aside that US does not need a navy to enforce sanctions because they have other ways to enforce sanctions ,like Petro Dollars..
Freezing Bank Accounts of nations who refuse to obey.,black mailing Nations to not do business with you. It helps a lot when you are the World major economy and your banks hold most of EU and many other nations gold reserves.
From the time an enemy is detected via satellite or human intel till the time an aircraft can be fuelled up and flown potentially 10,000km to the target area is too long. Having a sub or ship off the coast and launching a missile almost immediately... and being able to launch follow up attacks also immediately after the missiles hit is far more useful to russia.
You continue to IGNORE ,(for the sake bring an argument) what i told you of having military bases away of their land in zones of potential conflict. So there is no 10,000 to fly.. The base will be right there exactly at the same distance of the Submarine if not closer.. But also remember you can't bomb countries just because there are terrorist there. You can only attack terrorist if you are request help with that nation. And direct hits with airforce are more accurate.
A ship or sub can operate off a countries coast for weeks... an aircraft can be there for minutes only before it has to return home.
A military airport in that same place can operate for as much time.. irrelevant.
The cost of those military bases is enormous... and you are assuming you have permission... You might get a base in Africa but not get permission to attack the neighbour of that country for fear of retaliation by that country on the country you just launched the attack from.
It is a hornets nest.
Incorrect. US and NATO have bases all over the middle east and pay NOT A SINGLE PENNY FOR IT ,not a single cent..
There are specials cases where the military base is even build by the hosting nation.. ie Saudis and Qataris and others build military bases in their NAtion for NATO free of any cost. so they need to pay nothing. But also bases in South America they had paying nothing for the base. Any nation under threat of a major war with a foreign power will have no problem to giving away any of their Airports for Russia to help in their defense. But even if they have to pay for a rent, a military airforce base is not any more costly than the cost of operating a SUbmarine or aircraft carrier. Not a chance.
Hahaha... how many countries have real time access to satellite imagery?
every half an hour check will be fine to know when a submarine is on any port.. Spies even more cheap or Rocks with spy cameras as we have seen NATO or allies likes to use.
no navy need to spy any naval port .
UK also have a Spy tower in Cyprus just 100km of Syrian coast that monitors all the Syrian coast communication and warships locations.
Makes you wonder why NATO bothers with Submarines... any dick head with a stick of dynamite and a box of matches can defeat any multi million dollar sub it seems.
Because they can afford them.. and NATO is an Offensive Army. They need big navies for invading Nations.And RUssia armed forced are defensive one ,they don't have a need for a big navy because they dont invade they only protect .
I am talking about realistic uses of a Russian naval force... not drug taking 101.
If the US imposed stricter sanctions that included a naval blockade what could Russia do with its air force?
So you really think Russian airforce cannot sink a NATO NAVY is they need it?
why i bother discussing with you.
It would make much more sense to deal with such a situation with naval vessels.
Equally with Venezuela and Vietnam it would be naval forces that could be sent to show support and solidarity.
Only more sense if you lack of any tactics understanding. Navies alone cannot win wars.. You need airforce and ARmy.
A NATO invasion never start until they have Air superiority. Give a NATION strong Air defenses , strong tactical airforce with strong
ARmy and No NATO invasion. For nothing no one in NATO wants to form in line to Attack IRAN and their navy is very weak..
Which 4-6 tactical planes can carry 32 Kalibrs? Which ones can carry that number of missiles globally... you are basically talking about the Tu-160, which means 3 planes... almost 1/3 of your strategic jet bomber force... it does not include escort and support aircraft.
Kalibrs ,and any antiship missile can be launched from Land . Russia with any SUkhois or Migs jets can launch waves of anti ship missiles overwhelming any aegis flying under their radars. Airforce can defeat Navy.. If you don't believe it ,then is because you have no a lot of understanding of combat tactics.
Most third world countries can detect aircraft... most first world countries have problems tracking submarines.
Any third world country can deploy patrol boats with torpedos or anti submarine missiles. in the worse of the cases.. as soon a submarine launch the first cruise missile it will be spotted its last location on the radars. and Chased and destroyed by any airforce prepared for that Job. And there goes your 2 US$ billions investment. with a cheap torpedo.
So instead of spending billions on a useful navy you want to squander billions on foreign bases... presumably that are air supplied...
which is incredibly inefficient and expensive...
Totally disagree . Only inefficient if you have no knowledge of tactics..
If Assad falls what would happen to the Russian naval base in Tartus?
And in what way having a big navy at the coast of Syria can win the war for assad? The combats are in land..
Russia in the same way can push NATO navies away with strong long range Air defenses ,land deployed kalibr missiles. or fired from Air.
Su-34s can launch yakhonts those will be fine. Syria Airforce have their old migs configured to launch Yakhonts from cheap planes.. The only limit how to fight in a war are your brains..as a Bonus ,land deployed Airforce can help in the land war for Direct Hits ,something NAvy cannot efficiently do with the precision and timing required against mobile armies,simply you need Air superiority to help winning wars. Navy cannot get close any coast without air superiority first ,specially on shallow waters .
Strong Airforce already deployed in land with solid defense can significantly help in winning wars and do not have such limitations
Do you think a world wide network of Russian foreign bases would make the US and the west more or less likely to interfere in the politics of those countries to try to get the Russian forces out?
The same question to you..
Do you think a world wide network of NaVies bases would make the US and the west more or less likely to interfere in the politics of those countries to try to get the Russian forces out?
The answer is No.. having an army ,navy ,airforce or any military does not guarantee that there will be any Interference at all.
So your argument again is Irrelevant. a strong NAvy does not help in any way to keep US away of interfering on any other nation politics.
Russia actually have a lots of problems with US interference in their politics.
To be blunt you are being stupid.
You simply understand nothing of tactics ,Geo-politics ,economics ,the difference of geography can make in a war, and like to argue with everyone even if you know your clearly wrong. The Believe that Russia can be blockaded/isolated with a navy and that their Airforce can't defeat any NATO Navy.. Should be more than enough for anyone to give up in any conversation about tactics with you.
The UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan, the US didn't become powerful and then build a big navy... they became powerful by building a powerful navy first which made them global powers, or in the case of Japan a dominant regional power.
yes but that was in the past.. today in modern times things are different.. there was no planes back in those times with long range cruise missiles and radars that could rule the skies and defeat navy. German NAvy defeated by Airforce.. Japan navy defeated by Airforce.
Airforce is the major enemy of NAVY for its Fast mobility and ability to fly under the radar. Even weak airforces can pose a danger for powerful navies.. look at Pearl harvor.
,History is filled with tons and tons of examples of Airforce defeating navy ,only people who dig their heads on the sand and refuse to look at the historical facts and give excuses for a warship being destroyed by cheap tactics will think otherwise. Even hezbolah a paramilitary group with no navy intercepted an Israeli Corvette INS Hanit that was blockading Lebanon port with 1 very cheap Chinesse anti-ship missile in the 2006 war.
So much for your blockades ,will love to see Nato try blockading the Black sea to Russia with their navies will not last an hour there..
THis is using primitive weapons ,and tactics. Egypt also with 2 cheap patrol boats sinked Israeli destroyer Eila Destroyer of Israel in another war. 40 people killed. here the video..
anyway im done with arguing with you.. there is no hope to to discuss anything with you about tactics .