Venezuela is buying 9 SSKs !

[contedicavour]

You are assuming only US assets would be involved. If Venezuela spreads its 9 future SSKs across the Carib, surely a few more NATO countries than just the US would provide combat resources in view of their national interests e.g. Netherlands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, other Netherlands Antilles isles), France (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana), UK (Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat etc). Also, lets not discount other South American countries and navies, e.g Brazil. Netherlands, France and Brazil do have some efficient SSKs.

France (which btw only has SSNs), UK and the Netherlands don't operate permanently any subs or ASW FFGs in the Caribbean except for rare occasions. Brazil, though led by a moderate left wing govt, probably won't risk public opinion anger by sending ships & subs against Chavez.
At the end of the day it would be up to the USN to counter any Venezuelan threat.

cheers

 

[Rich]

Right now Chavez is following a pattern of South American strongmen thru recent history. You could call him an elected leader but the truth is he has led coup attempts, has feared coup attempts, "Democracy" is relative in Valenzuela. Right now he is taking the minds of his people off their many social and economic problems with his confrontational stance against the US. New oil will lead him to piss much of his nations wealth off on weapons systems they dont need. Soon thereafter he will start some kind of military adventure or Diplomatic crisis. Chavez, Noriega, Peron, Videla, Pinochet, Fujimorri, Castro, Galtieri....ect, "and I can go on". No matter what the ideology, or what the alliances, they were all much the same. All were, or are, military strongmen who eventually used the military to oppress their own people and/or launch military adventures.

The two who come to mind most would be the Argentine junta with the Falklands and Castro with his various Africa adventures. And now we have Hugo Chaves who has decided he is the only man who can save the world from the American people, who are hell bent on conquering and enslaving the entire galaxy.:

There is a word in Spanish called "Caudillo" and to understand what produces characters like Chavez you have to understand caudillismo. Not just that but you have to understand its impact in Latin culture, both current and historical. Loosely translated a "caudillo" is a "strongman" or "military cheif or Dictator". "Caudillismo" is a cultural phenomon that grew out of 19'th century revolutionary South America. Its actual roots came from the days of Spanish Empire when the Spanish had a policy of supplementing small cadres of professional, full-time soldiers with large militia forces recruited from local populations to maintain public order. This was a prestigious position, and a lucrative one, because the Caudillo answered to no one but the Crown and could acquire wealth anyway he wanted.

A "caudillo" could be better described as a "charismatic militia leader" and they have come from many social classes and idiologies. "Most" have probably been wealthy landowners but all of them have controlled large patronage armies they used as vehicles to power. You could compare Roman Empire society to caudillism. For instance Julias Caesar could be called a "caudillo".

So like his friend Castro, Chavez is exactly the type of Caudillo that has flourished in this region thru recent history. Since gaining power he has quashed dissent, weakened the Unions, acquired Dictatorial powers, wrecked the economy, and embraced the likes of Fidel, Saddam, Qadaffi, Ahmadinejad, and various other oppressive Governments and Dictators.

So next on the list, following the historical model of caudillistic delusions of grandeur, will be military adventurism. Chavez has made no secret that he wants to re-write the constitution and run for President again in 2012, "he already changed the terms from 5 years to 6", and there's nothing like a military success for popularity. I will add that in his Government he holds all the power regarding military decisions and spending. Like I said, a "typical" caudillo. And for a caudillo retirement or leaving office is not an option.

SSKs are offensive weapons of war. My assessment is this guy is capable of doing something really goofy.

 

[contedicavour]

What makes me feel better is that with oil around 50 USD a barrel and potentially lower soon enough, the Venezuelan budget will be on a tightrope. Oil production is also decreasing because of the hijacking of PDVSA by Chavez' folks (with all the skilled technicians leaving...) and because of the threats of nationalization of the installations on the Orinoco.
What's more, Chavez is building "friendship" in the continent by supplying underpriced oil (a bit like Russia with former satellite countries). That's also a major issue for state coffers.
Last but not least, inflation is exploding and the Central Bank is entirely politicized and unable to pilot its monetary policy.

=> Expect big financial & budget crisis in the next few years. May be the 9 SSKs won't materialize after all (or only some will). Hopefully.

cheers

 

[Rich]

Let me ask you this my friend. If you were Hugo Chavez and you wanted to acquire the capability to threaten US CVs how would you go about it?

Without question two systems would top the list. Both the SU-30 and a bunch of the advanced export version SSKs currently available, "along with their missiles and torpedoes".

If you are concerned with the defense of your air space and coastline you can get by cheaper with different systems. yes the SU-30 can be called "multi-role" but its long range and weapons load it can carry make it a perfect maritime strike air craft to threaten a carrier with. If I remember right Venezuela ordered the very same MK2 version the Chinese did which is optimized for maritime strike.

They are geographically placed to cause us great problems, what with being within spitting distance of the Panama canal. With their oil wealth they dont need cash to purchase these systems. A credit card will do just fine. It would be a mistake to underestimate a potential enemy that can operate systems like a fleet of SU-30MK2s, 9 advanced AIP SSKs, and their accompanying weapons.

 

[McZosch]

Let me ask you this my friend. If you were Hugo Chavez and you wanted to acquire the capability to threaten US CVs how would you go about it?

Without question two systems would top the list. Both the SU-30 and a bunch of the advanced export version SSKs currently available, "along with their missiles and torpedoes".

If you are concerned with the defense of your air space and coastline you can get by cheaper with different systems. yes the SU-30 can be called "multi-role" but its long range and weapons load it can carry make it a perfect maritime strike air craft to threaten a carrier with. If I remember right Venezuela ordered the very same MK2 version the Chinese did which is optimized for maritime strike.

They are geographically placed to cause us great problems, what with being within spitting distance of the Panama canal. With their oil wealth they dont need cash to purchase these systems. A credit card will do just fine. It would be a mistake to underestimate a potential enemy that can operate systems like a fleet of SU-30MK2s, 9 advanced AIP SSKs, and their accompanying weapons.

I would say, it's a strategic error for Venezuela to purchase offensive weapon systems. The threat is not the CVBG, it's the ARG.
I would rather take on a defensive posture, like Egypt early in the Yom Kippur-war successfully did. A strong defense, consisting of strong ground forces and a mighty SAM-umbrella. The SSKs could form the naval component.

Any strategy is to be checked against the possiblity of preemptive strikes by stealth aircraft. I think, the SSKs would fit better into this than the Su-30s.

 

[merocaine]

Let me ask you this my friend. If you were Hugo Chavez and you wanted to acquire the capability to threaten US CVs how would you go about it?

The Su's are there to buy the loyalty of the airforce and sideline the old yank friendly F-16 pilots. The SSKs I'm not so sure, doesent make sense, perhaps he really does expect an American attack!
He'd have to be mad to try anything in the region, America would totally flatten Valenzuela if they tried it on with any of there neighbours.

 

[contedicavour]

I would say, it's a strategic error for Venezuela to purchase offensive weapon systems. The threat is not the CVBG, it's the ARG.
I would rather take on a defensive posture, like Egypt early in the Yom Kippur-war successfully did. A strong defense, consisting of strong ground forces and a mighty SAM-umbrella. The SSKs could form the naval component.

Any strategy is to be checked against the possiblity of preemptive strikes by stealth aircraft. I think, the SSKs would fit better into this than the Su-30s.

Good point - they need Grumble & Tor SAM sites to cover their airbases, otherwise the SU30s on the ground are very vulnerable to standoff missile strikes. Oh, and positioned correctly they could even create problems over the Dutch Antilles' airspace, since those islands are close to the continent.

However if Chavez doesn't think a US attack is likely, and his real objective is irritating the US to the maximum without provoking an outright attack... then the SSKs are an excellent idea. They will keep lots of USN assets bogged down in the Caribbean.

I'd also have another couple of ideas of how Chavez could be even more a pain in the ass... but I'll refrain from giving ideas to his regime ...

cheers

 

[tatra]

France (which btw only has SSNs), UK and the Netherlands don't operate permanently any subs or ASW FFGs in the Caribbean except for rare occasions. Brazil, though led by a moderate left wing govt, probably won't risk public opinion anger by sending ships & subs against Chavez.
At the end of the day it would be up to the USN to counter any Venezuelan threat.

cheers

Agree, stand corrected on France having SSK. But both Uk and France have interests in the area and would deploy if a serious threat occurred. Likewise the Dutch, their navy has/had permanent presence in the area too, though not (always) sub(s). It's SSK are used to deploy away from the Netherlands (e.g. ex-Yugoslavia)

 

[Chrom]

I would say, it's a strategic error for Venezuela to purchase offensive weapon systems. The threat is not the CVBG, it's the ARG.
I would rather take on a defensive posture, like Egypt early in the Yom Kippur-war successfully did. A strong defense, consisting of strong ground forces and a mighty SAM-umbrella. The SSKs could form the naval component.

Any strategy is to be checked against the possiblity of preemptive strikes by stealth aircraft. I think, the SSKs would fit better into this than the Su-30s.

Any pure defencive war will be lost no matter what. You MUST have something you attack with - or you will lose sooner or later. In US-Venezualla case it will be rather sooner. At least with offencive weapon they threating to inflict unacceptable losses to US assets and can hope what US will think twice before attacking them.

 

[McZosch]

Any pure defencive war will be lost no matter what. You MUST have something you attack with - or you will lose sooner or later. In US-Venezualla case it will be rather sooner. At least with offencive weapon they threating to inflict unacceptable losses to US assets and can hope what US will think twice before attacking them.

Nope, with defensive weapons they will inflict more losses, especially if handled with skill. Maybe not material losses, but human. A defensive posture would put the US into the aggressor-role.

Those SSKs are to a greater degree a defensive measure. They could not be wiped out by a B-2 attack, for example. But they do have a credible offensive capacity. Ideal ships for Venezuela.

Maybe it's a bit false to mention it here, but we are living in the "post-heroic-age" (read Luttwak - Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace). No media-democracy can afford to have big losses. 3000 dead soldiers in Iraq is a small number, but the U.S. can simply not deal with it. No western country can, that is (and was) the major "weakness" (personally, I see this as an advantage) of democracy. You need to have something life-threatening.

 

[Falstaff]

I'm wondering about what dear Hugo needs 9 (which is quite a lot) SSK's for. Some of you think it's a mainly offensive weapon, some think, it's a weapon of defence.

I think the main reason to buy such a submarine force is deterrence. Clearly Chavez found his favourite enemy some time ago in the north and -if sensible or not- perhaps he really thinks that some day the US would like to knock him off.
So he is not building a credible naval force to counter that perceived threat which would take even more money for all the stuff you need. He buys an incredible number of submarines and hopes the knowledge that these are there in the gulf, virtually indetectable (at least he thinks so), will prevent his enemies from taking action.

BTW: Made a quick google, I didn't find another source for the 9 SSK thing.

 

[Chrom]

Nope, with defensive weapons they will inflict more losses, especially if handled with skill. Maybe not material losses, but human. A defensive posture would put the US into the aggressor-role.

Those SSKs are to a greater degree a defensive measure. They could not be wiped out by a B-2 attack, for example. But they do have a credible offensive capacity. Ideal ships for Venezuela.
.

You assumed 2 prepositions:
1. USA will conduct ground operation
2. USA will occuppy the country.

Both are absolutely essencial for so-called "defencive" tactic. The only problem - USA might as well NOT occupy the country, just bomb it to stone age, kill president and half goverement, bribe and blackmail all others - and the main objective - oil - is safe. This is not something Venzuella wants. Thats why, especeally for weak countries, offencive weapon is much more important than defencive. Note, the term "offencive" and "deffencive" is very misleading in many cases, as most weapons can be used in both roles - but still some weapons are defined as mostly "deffencive" due to naturally its habit to give all the initiative to enemy. The SAM's are a good example of such pure defencive weapon, or bunkers, etc...
Realistically, Venezuella (or any other country for that matter, even USA themselfes) can do NOTHING against constant barrage of cruise missiles IF said country dont fight back. Sooner or later - it will be ruined. Offence - FTW!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Realistically, Venezuella (or any other country for that matter, even USA themselfes) can do NOTHING against constant barrage of cruise missiles IF said country dont fight back. Sooner or later - it will be ruined. Offence - FTW!

a barrage requires sufficient launch platforms to be in place against time critical, static and mobile targets.

most scenarios look good in theory but fail "logistics 101"

 

[contedicavour]

a barrage requires sufficient launch platforms to be in place against time critical, static and mobile targets.

most scenarios look good in theory but fail "logistics 101"

Besides we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq that destroying the armed forces of the opponent doesn't solve anything unless there is a clear plan to manage regime change and prevent chaos and guerrilla forces from fighting back.
I don't see what use sending a volley of TLAMs into Caracas would do the cause of democracy against the constantly strenghtening dictatorial regime of Chavez (yes he was elected, but as a term limited president, not as a Castro bis). There is even a big risk of radicalizing Venezuelan public opinion against the US and the democratic opposition to Chavez.
Best solution is to wait for the price of oil to come down, for inflation and public debt to explode, and let Chavez' regime implode. A good way to help it implode is to counter it in the rest of Latin America so that it uses up all its money to try to influence regimes elsewhere. This will deplete government reserves and make it unpopular at home. Even Brazil might help in such a programme by propping up anti-Chavez parties in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and other places where pro-Chavez people are gaining.

cheers

 

[Chrom]

Besides we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq that destroying the armed forces of the opponent doesn't solve anything unless there is a clear plan to manage regime change and prevent chaos and guerrilla forces from fighting back.
I don't see what use sending a volley of TLAMs into Caracas would do the cause of democracy against the constantly strenghtening dictatorial regime of Chavez (yes he was elected, but as a term limited president, not as a Castro bis). There is even a big risk of radicalizing Venezuelan public opinion against the US and the democratic opposition to Chavez.
Best solution is to wait for the price of oil to come down, for inflation and public debt to explode, and let Chavez' regime implode. A good way to help it implode is to counter it in the rest of Latin America so that it uses up all its money to try to influence regimes elsewhere. This will deplete government reserves and make it unpopular at home. Even Brazil might help in such a programme by propping up anti-Chavez parties in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and other places where pro-Chavez people are gaining.

cheers

There is only 1 big problem for that plan - Venezuella economic must develop itself far worse than its US puppets neighbourhoods. To tell the truth, this is very unlikely. More likely what Venzuella will develop far better than other regional countries due to money influx from natural resources. Many otherwise impossible projects can be achieved with these moneys - education, medicine, industry, etc. No amount of advices from US (even IF they are indeed good advices) will substitute big money from OIL.

 

[swerve]

There is only 1 big problem for that plan - Venezuella economic must develop itself far worse than its US puppets neighbourhoods. To tell the truth, this is very unlikely. More likely what Venzuella will develop far better than other regional countries due to money influx from natural resources. Many otherwise impossible projects can be achieved with these moneys - education, medicine, industry, etc. No amount of advices from US (even IF they are indeed good advices) will substitute big money from OIL.

Big problem with that scenario is what Venezuela has done with the flood of oil money it's had for the last 75 years - not much. Hasn't even kept up with such famously oil-rich countries as France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany & Italy, let alone such other resource-rich states as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan & Singapore.

A stream of income from a natural resource doesn't bring development unless used wisely. Venezuelas record is of squandering wealth, & Chavez is squandering faster than most of his predecessors. He can probably keep it up for quite a long time, but he won't make the country any richer. Probably poorer - he'll completely ruin every productive industry except the oil industry, & even that will decline through lack of investment. Then, the social services he's paying for with oil money will decay, because there won't be enough oil money to pay for them.

 

[Chrom]

A stream of income from a natural resource doesn't bring development unless used wisely. Venezuelas record is of squandering wealth, & Chavez is squandering faster than most of his predecessors. He can probably keep it up for quite a long time, but he won't make the country any richer. Probably poorer - he'll completely ruin every productive industry except the oil industry, & even that will decline through lack of investment. Then, the social services he's paying for with oil money will decay, because there won't be enough oil money to pay for them.

Hmm, you know - the part of problem WHY Venezuella havent benefited before from oil is exactly that - the might of international oil corporations, USA in this case. They had "privatised" 90% of profit from oil. Thats why USA was SOOOO upset about nationalization of oil industry - they are now short of BIG money - which, naturally, will be now spend by venezuellian goverment. Note, this have very little to do with actual oil prices. After all, to spend money wisely, you must have them in first place.

 

[swerve]

Hmm, you know - the part of problem WHY Venezuella havent benefited before from oil is exactly that - the might of international oil corporations, USA in this case. They had "privatised" 90% of profit from oil. Thats why USA was SOOOO upset about nationalization of oil industry - they are now short of BIG money - which, naturally, will be now spend by venezuellian goverment. Note, this have very little to do with actual oil prices. After all, to spend money wisely, you must have them in first place.

You don't think selling petrol at less than the price of the crude oil it was refined from might have had something to do with it? Nor decades of politicians, officials, & the military making vast sums which they stashed away in foreign banks?

BTW, you're wrong. Venezuela has received most of the revenues from oil sales, for most of the time Venezuela has been pumping oil, & most of that money has been spent inside Venezuela. But it's been spent on consumption, not investment.

 

[Chrom]

You don't think selling petrol at less than the price of the crude oil it was refined from might have had something to do with it? Nor decades of politicians, officials, & the military making vast sums which they stashed away in foreign banks?
BTW, you're wrong. Venezuela has received most of the revenues from oil sales, for most of the time Venezuela has been pumping oil, & most of that money has been spent inside Venezuela. But it's been spent on consumption, not investment.

See? While corrurpt politicans allowed US corporations to get big money from Venezuealla's oil (and also get some money for themselves) - US had no problem with Venezualla goverment, and didnt cared about Venezuallian peoples or democracy there. But once much less corrupt politicans come to might, and wanted to get some money for the country and simple peoples - US promtly started to care about democracy, the life of "simple" peoples, corruption, etc. Its very untrue what "Venezuela has received most of the revenues from oil sales, for most of the time Venezuela has been pumping oil, & most of that money has been spent inside Venezuela". While formally it might be even true, de-facto most of the money recived US corporations. One of the methods you already named - underpriced refined petrol. There was many others, for example exxagerated expences. We all know how many dirty tricks to avoid taxes can (and surery WILL) pull big corporation without outside control. And in Venezuella there was very little control. And it was in the very best US interests to keep that situation. Nothing wrong from US side of view - but lets not fall to propoganda and name it also "good" from Venezuella point of view.

 

[swerve]

... de-facto most of the money recived US corporations. One of the methods you already named - underpriced refined petrol. ....

The underpriced refined petrol I referred to is the retail price inside Venezuela. Venezuela has sometimes had to importing refined petrol. It's sold at much less than the cost. A massive subsidy to every Venezuelan who can afford a car.

Agreed, that the poor have been neglected. Government spending has been skewed towards the middle & upper classes (a common Latin American pattern - look at Brazil, for example). But it doesn't affect the main point: the income from oil has consistently been spent on consumption rather than investment, much of it replacing production of other goods rather than enabling development. Chavez is changing who gets some of the money, but apart from that he is following the same foolish policies, and even going farther down the same stupid road.