Military Review

Russian military base in Sudan: how realistic is it?

14
Some military experts are convinced that there is no practical benefit from a military base on the Red Sea, whether it is a naval base or a naval base. After all, flight time from the Hmeimim airbase in Syria is only about 20 minutes. However, this is not entirely correct statement. First, we need to understand that Israel is located between Sudan and Syria - not a friendly country. Secondly, 20-minute to overcome this distance can only contribute to the supersonic speed, which is not entirely aligned with the tasks and capabilities of modern fighters.


14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 29 November 2017 11: 37 New
    0
    As for unfriendly Israel, this is of course an exaggeration, but you can’t call them friendly either. So, they get confused between their legs and look who will take it? But it will not hurt to look after them, to establish a powerful tracking radar, and a radio intelligence system.
    1. max702
      max702 29 November 2017 22: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Mar. Tira

      0
      Mar. Thira Today, 11: 37 New
      As for unfriendly Israel, this is of course an exaggeration, but you can’t call them friendly either. So, they get confused between their legs and look who will take it? But it will not hurt to look after them, to establish a powerful tracking radar, and a radio intelligence system.

      Israel is watching someone takes it? How naive are you ... Israel is the ideologist and organizer of the Arab Spring, ISIS and other Apkaid .. The USA in Israel’s politics is only a technical executor, Israel distributes finances himself .. So all the swag on BV is exclusively to the God’s chosen ..
    2. misti1973
      misti1973 7 December 2017 00: 54 New
      0
      In BV we are confused between them! This is not a very patriotic statement, but it’s close to the truth :) First you need to put things in order at home, and then climb into other regions.
  2. ImPerts
    ImPerts 29 November 2017 12: 06 New
    +1
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    As for the unfriendly Israel, this is of course an exaggeration, but you certainly cannot call them friendly. So, they get confused between their legs and look who will take it?

    I do not agree. If everything is considered in the context of the flight of aircraft from b. Hmeimim to the area of ​​interest, the presence of a developed air defense system and trained - trained air force will not provide the solution to any problems.
    PMTO is needed there. Under what conditions and how? There are smart people for this, let them decide, discuss and agree.
  3. MOSKVITYANIN
    MOSKVITYANIN 29 November 2017 21: 11 New
    0
    You can start with a small network of PMTO Fleets and airfields, Sudan, about. Sakotra (Yemen), Seychelles, rental fees in the form of barter, primarily weapons ...
    After the SAR, each of the dictators will want to have the WB of the Russian Federation on their territory ...
    1. misti1973
      misti1973 7 December 2017 01: 06 New
      0
      It's very stupid to side with rogue dictators. And it is impossible to afford to disperse its military forces all over the world of Russia. Thus, it is not clear what goals we can pursue by spending considerable funds on this? Shuffle with all the serious players because of exorbitant ambitions and protecting a bunch of freaks?
      1. MOSKVITYANIN
        MOSKVITYANIN 7 December 2017 07: 29 New
        0
        misti1973
        It's very stupid to side with rogue dictators.

        The largest U.S. Navy in the BV is in Bahrain, the largest U.S. Air Force base in the BV is in Qatar. The training base of the British CAC is located in Oman.
        Try to convince me that the regimes in these Middle Eastern states are a model of democracy, provided that there is an absolute monarchy.
  4. bald
    bald 29 November 2017 22: 41 New
    0
    It would not be bad to have a navy and a videoconferencing base there, but you can plunge into such a quagmire! Civil wars between Arabs and Muslims, plus many contenders from outside. The armament of Sudan is old, ours, therefore, it will have to be invested there. Unless, at the expense of their oil - but we don’t want to bother even without them, and what’s still brewing.
    1. askme
      askme 30 November 2017 02: 44 New
      0
      Do not exaggerate the complexity of Sudan. With all his difficulties, he coped remarkably well both before us and without us, if not for the Yankees. So we take the Yankees. So we don’t need excessive zeal in local showdowns, or rather, we don’t need any zeal in showdowns. One thing is needed from us there: to promote peace. Feasible. Weak people view any problems as “everything is lost” or beat them like sparrows - this is a hysteroid type reaction. Because of such reactions, the USSR had many mistakes in the past. But Putin demonstrates the ability to fine politics, leadership politics: it is that problems are seen as a chance to become stronger. And if Russia can politically resolve local conflicts, contribute to solving the problems of the region, can create a zone of peace in the region, Russia will become an authority in Africa, and not just in the Middle East. Of course, we will need military force there, perhaps it will even have to be used a couple of times, but this is not the main thing. The main thing is that we will have there the power of a large state controlled by African standards that we control. In any case, since we get in there, it means that our leadership has some ideas. And since in the Middle East it has proved itself to be highly competent, I want to believe that in Africa we will not disappoint. At least there is no reason to criticize. So far they have not decided anything, apparently, while there is a lot of water ....
      1. bald
        bald 30 November 2017 04: 47 New
        0
        It was Sudan who came to visit us, not we asking him. Do we have enough finance for all conflicts at once? And everything goes to that. And I repeat once again - I am not an opponent of our bases in Sudan, but I also need to think a little about the consequences with my head.
        1. askme
          askme 30 November 2017 07: 23 New
          0
          Well, I came. For a long time we thought whether to accept. They decided to accept. So there is some reason ...
          Why all conflicts? In Syria, the main shaft of the conflict passed. Then either peace or world war. In the latter case, no one will think about money. There everything will be measured in minutes, hours, not days ... Sudan, thus - a new page, and not "all at once." Yes, and we do not need to fight in Sudan. If that we are there for the "shooter" with an international gang led by the Yankees. And the rest is not for us to participate in their hostilities with the local Papuans. There are much smaller scales from a technical point of view than in Syria, i.e. cheaper, i.e. small loans if that.

          All due to the teachings can be written off. And in terms of economy and profit, we will come from the same gold ...

          I have no reason to doubt Putin in terms of his head in international military activity. So far, he has shown himself well as a military-political strategist.
          1. bald
            bald 30 November 2017 07: 33 New
            0
            I think in Syria we have only the beginning, so to speak, a start, everything is in full swing around her, like on a volcano. Further Ukraine - there will not do without our intervention. Afghanistan is brewing (those who move north from there). I am silent about the Far East - we will be enough for us in terms of expenses and our security. I agree about Putin - but apparently getting old.
            1. askme
              askme 30 November 2017 07: 37 New
              0
              Yes, you can think of anything. I analyze the military-financial aspect. There are no more than 100000 ISIS army in Syria. There is no one to fight with us there. If there is a war, then this is a war with large countries. And this is a 100% region-wide war, quickly turning into a nuclear war. What's not clear? There is no more fuel there in the form of ISIS. No more large-scale military operations against the Papuans. Papuans knocked everyone out. Remained a trifle. Which the Syrians themselves will do at their own expense. And the topic of Sudan is not a single side ...

              The rest is fortune-tellers for now. Compared to the 100000th ISIS in Syria, there are no such opponents for us, our caliber ... Against the available local forces is enough. So Sudan is quite capable.
      2. misti1973
        misti1973 7 December 2017 01: 14 New
        0
        Putin maneuvers between the interests of the main players — the USA, Israel and Iran in the BV, but there’s no sense in it. He only has to get into an open confrontation and the scribe is inevitable. Therefore, he doesn’t sell the same S-300 or S-400 to Assad, nor Iran. Afraid! There you have all the prestige :) Don’t tell the venerable public such statements. We are strong only at home.