Venezuela and Cuba may host Russian strategic bombers

[Namenlos Ein]

• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509203,00.html
  
• http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQgtPJKk5pgB8tQv9QEZ-Fz4B11Q
  

Russia weighs Cuba, Venezuela bases

 

MOSCOW (AFP) — Russia could use bases for its strategic bombers on the doorstep of the United States in Cuba and Venezuela to underpin long-distance patrols in the region, a senior air force officer said Saturday.

 

"This is possible in Cuba," General Anatoly Zhikharev, chief of the Russian air force's strategic aviation staff, told the Interfax-AVN military news agency.

 

The comments were the latest signal that Moscow intends to project its military capability in far-flung corners of the globe despite a tight defence budget and hardware that experts consider in many respects outdated.

 

Zhikharev indicated that Russia was looking only at occasional use of the facilities -- not setting up permanent bases in the region.

 

He noted that the Venezuelan constitution prohibited establishment of military bases of foreign states on Venezuelan territory and described the Russian possible use of the facility there as "we land, we complete the flight, we take off."

 

Zhikharev said Cuba had a several air bases equipped with the long runways needed by the heavy bombers and said the facilities there were "entirely acceptable" for use by the Russian aircraft during long-distance patrols.

 

"If the will of the two states is there, the political will, then we are prepared to fly there" to the bases in Cuba, the agency quoted Zhikharev as saying.

 

The general also said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had offered to let Russian strategic bombers use a military airfield on La Orchila island, a military base off the central area of the country's coastline.

 

"Yes, there has been such a proposal from the Venezuelan president," Zhikharev said.

 

"If a relevant political decision is made, this is possible," he added. […]

 

Last July however, a top US air force officer warned that Russia would cross "a red line" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba.

 

"If they did, I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America," said General Norton Schwartz said on July 23. […]

Cold War? Who said 'Cold War'? It is all about an airfields for using in the long range training flights, not more.

[topol-m]

Cold War? Who said 'Cold War'? It is all about an airfields for using in the long range training flights, not more.

 

Of course. Kh-65s have several thousand km of range so its usefull your Tu-160s to be closer to your potential targets to deliver them faster. Its not cold war its just foresight. Just in case. Well training flights are good too.

[nscode]

I see it already... the Venezuelan bomber crysis. After deploying the missile sheald in europe, US blocks fleets of Tu-160 from reaching Venezuela.

 

Wonder if we will be lucky as the last time. :/ Would be a good movie, thoug :D

[topol-m]

I see it already... the Venezuelan bomber crysis. After deploying the missile sheald in europe, US blocks fleets of Tu-160 from reaching Venezuela.

 

Wonder if we will be lucky as the last time. :/ Would be a good movie, thoug :D

 

Man, i don`t see how could they block the bombers, but they could turn the whole world into bases for the missile shield. Not that it will prevent nuke strike but maybe the US population could sleep peacefully knowing that there is certain possibility that not all the major town will receive numerous nuke hits.

[GGTharos]

They have them F-22's and F-15's to turn Tu-160's around :D

 

Not enough Tu-160's to make it through, AFAIK.

[topol-m]

They have them F-22's and F-15's to turn Tu-160's around :D

 

Not enough Tu-160's to make it through, AFAIK.

 

Hehe nice try. They just wont turn back. Dare to shoot them down in international air space? Dont think so, cause the useless missile shield could be tested a lot sooner than most people think.

[GGTharos]

What makes you think its useless?

 

I mean, I could just say that Russian nukes are useless too ;)

 

I also doubt they'd want to get nuked into oblivion over a bomber - or even all of them ;)

[EvilBivol-1]

First and last OT warning before closing.

[nscode]

They don't have to shoot them down. Just a quick mission to put an X on all the available airbases would do.

[Kuky]

I deleted my post so I don't stir up trouble :doh:

[Pilotasso]

This news are just for internal comsumption. Bombers or no bombers, whatever US has enough planes to shield them or not is irrelevant considering that there are very few bases those bombers can use. Strategicaly thats a non issue. Politicaly is another matter.

[Namenlos Ein]

Funny story from one Russian newspaper.

Journalists ask pilots of Tu-160 after returning to Russia from Venezuela about mission tasks.

 

Answer: 'We flight around the Caribbean Region, demonstrate some might of the Russia, establish friendly relations with the people of Venezuela, and in the first place (whispered) we have a very cheap refueling.'

[Boberro]

It is good political move - no doubt.

But it has not any significant military power - the bombers' age is past.

Nuclear silos in Cuba that would be different story.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Russia is doing the same as NATO. It is demonstrating its might, its technology, its capability. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

But it has not any significant military power - the bombers' age is past.

Bombers still work really good against opponent that does not have capabilities to take them down. Even RC airplanes such as Predator do good against opponent that has nothing more then AK-47.

[topol-m]

It is good political move - no doubt.

But it has not any significant military power - the bombers' age is past.

Nuclear silos in Cuba that would be different story.

 

 

Well traditional bombing maybe, but tu-160 can carry cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, that can hit targets several thousand km away, so it can release them far away from any harm fighters or AA defense could cause him.

[EtherealN]

Also, it does carry a very important political message saying that Russia is ready (materially and politically) to project itself to the western hemisphere again. It doesn't at all have to have anything to do with a confrontation against the United States to be significant. It shows leftist governments in the americas that they can once again find a partner in Russia if they want to "get out" of the US sphere of influence.

 

And so on and so forth. That's the message I think this is sending. Similarly to how the bomber flights in the arctic may not be a real military threat, but it does make it clear to NATO that it has to mind what it's doing because it just might not go unchallenged.

 

Justifications and so on for all of that is a whole different matter. Some people seem to be of the opinion that south america is still viewed as mere client states by the US, others opine that the relationship is benign and people are just overreacting for ideological reasons, and it doesn't really matter who is right - just that the perceptions are there among people who make decisions and Russia is sending a message to them.

[topol-m]

Also, it does carry a very important political message saying that Russia is ready (materially and politically) to project itself to the western hemisphere again. It doesn't at all have to have anything to do with a confrontation against the United States to be significant. It shows leftist governments in the americas that they can once again find a partner in Russia if they want to "get out" of the US sphere of influence.

 

And so on and so forth. That's the message I think this is sending. Similarly to how the bomber flights in the arctic may not be a real military threat, but it does make it clear to NATO that it has to mind what it's doing because it just might not go unchallenged.

 

Justifications and so on for all of that is a whole different matter. Some people seem to be of the opinion that south america is still viewed as mere client states by the US, others opine that the relationship is benign and people are just overreacting for ideological reasons, and it doesn't really matter who is right - just that the perceptions are there among people who make decisions and Russia is sending a message to them.

 

I agree. NATO`s expand to the territories of Russia, means a counter expand should be done. I personally think nuclear bases in Cuba, Venezuela, etc. are a good answer to missile shield in Czech republic and Poland (recently i read that the clever czech are resisting to the idea of placing a radar system part of the MS on their territory - nice, no one wants to be the first thats nuked to stone age, except Poland maybe ).

[Pilotasso]

IMHO all that would result if russia started to measure its "might" (wich isnt but for internal news campaigns) over NATO right now would be a total numeric and technical disavantage in every aspect. Russia has barely 1/3 of the forces USSR had, and most of it is still from that era.

 

NATO has replaced everything for more modern stuff since then.

[topol-m]

IMHO all that would result if russia started to measure its "might" (wich isnt but for internal news campaigns) over NATO right now would be a total numeric and technical disavantage in every aspect. Russia has barely 1/3 of the forces USSR had, and most of it is still from that era.

 

NATO has replaced everything for more modern stuff since then.

 

 

Russian army is reforming, modernizing so in this process its not numbers that will count only but training and technology too. And while NATO maybe larger than russia, i dont think it is what it was as the differences between members politics and interests are becoming more and more evident the former unity of NATO can be questioned. It may not be far the time when EU`s own military and defensive structures will make the european states participation in nato unneeded. And as US is pulling everyone to the bottom now, this seems even a brighter possibility.

And concerning the power of Nato an Russia, imo Nato is not ready for a full scale war i seriously doubt there is a good organization and coordination mainly because of the different interests US and Europe would have in such a conflict, i`d say leeve the hooligan yankies to be spanked.

[Namenlos Ein]

'Full scale war' you said? It is all about a proposal temporary RuAF base in Venezuela and even more proposal base in Cuba. So far it is only words and projects. And after 'reloading' of relations between Russia and USA who knows maybe Russian strategic bombers will land in Florida.

 

[EtherealN]

Actually, from what I have gathered lately unity among the NATO members is growing. France seems to have taken steps towards re-entering the NATO command structure (as opposed to just being a NATO member). And one has to realize that the differences of opinion are on rather "light" topics - the fact that some NATO members didn't quite agree with the war in Iraq and therefore bitched a bit at Bush doesn't mean that they would refuse an official cause for assistance in the case of a direct attack.

 

(A clause in the treaty that the US could technically have invoked after 9/11 but chose not to, since it's pretty difficult to call your allies to defend you from an attack of a non-nation.)

 

But in the case of an actual conventional attack there would be no such squabbling - the clause would be invoked and even as that is being arranged the central NATO structure will be conducting operations. On the other hand, in the event of an american conventional attack against Russia they would not be able to call for such assistance under the NATO treaty, and we all know what tends to happen to people who think it's a trivial thing to commit to a conventional invasion of Russia. :P

 

Finally, it will be a LONG time before the european NATO members would be in a position where a defensive alliance with the US could be seen as "unecessary".

 

US military expenditure in 2009: 651,1 billion US dollars

EU military expenditure in 2009: 312,2 billion US dollars, including non-NATO members.

 

On the other hand,

People's Republic of China 2009 spending: 70,2 billion US dollars

Russia 2009 spending: 50 billion US dollars

 

Now, the real trouble with all of these things is of course that you get more roubles for the dollar than you get dollars for the rouble, so to speak. Pure spending would place russia below the UK, but it is quite arguable that the UK is the weaker in pure power. (How the case would be in force projection is something else though that is more difficult to judge.) Put I do have great difficulty seeing the UK backing out of the free assistance of the US atlantic and med fleets - it would cost a shitload for the UK to replace those assets that they are effectively getting for free.

 

And a final tidbit on the spendings side to emphasize just how far away it would be for european NATO members to drop the association to the US, the US spending of 651 billion dollars is more than half of the estimated one trillion dollars spent by NATO members. Amongst the NATO members the values you get for the dollar is also roughly the same (as opposed to the fact that Russia can build more materiel per dollar than NATO can), so replacing the strength would be equal or greater - greater because they would then either have to purchase american equipment to replace their stuff, or undergo massive restructuring programs to expand their own military-industrial infrastructure.

 

So in the end, Europe won't be ditching the US anytime soon, and no-one else even comes close to the force projection capabilities that the yanks have.

 

Whether those US tax dollars are well spent is another question, though. :P

 

EDIT: Numbers were fished up from Wikipedia, so they're not gospel.

[Pilotasso]

no one would consider those bombers a threat in that region for the simple fact there are few bases avaiable for them. Just without them, and the bombers would fly from russia with their fuel running out and nowhere to land.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Pilotasso

[EtherealN]

Aye, and Russian military planners know that of course. And the americans know that they know. That's why it's so clearly a political signals game where Russia is taking steps to once again be present in the western hemisphere and gain better contact with states down there. Grab a couple of nice trade deals and have half a foot inside the door on military co-operation through this very symbolic deal and you might well have something interesting ready to be achieved in a decade or two.

[jpm1]

me who fought Russia had become a democratic country it seems that there are still some "reds" hiding in some obscure Kremlin cellar waiting for their hour to come . i stop here before going politics

Edited March 18, 2009 by jpm1