[Ed. – The Russian navy’s makeup reflects national strategic priorities. Moscow doesn’t prioritize doing what the U.S. does with capital ships (for us, carriers/amphibs and Aegis): sea control and expeditionary warfare/geopolitical influence. The Russian goals are to hold political rivals at risk (the nuclear submarine fleet) and retain a decisive veto over land-linked waterways in the Eastern hemisphere (smaller ships and submarines). Given their different national priorities, the Russians have matched the U.S. level of commitment, and capability improvements, as they relate to specific goals. The comparison is never a mirror image; it’s always about what we’re each after, and the extent to which we’ve achieved it.]
While Foggo said Russia’s surface fleet, including its aging aircraft carrier, posed little threat — saying Moscow did “not have a robust capital ship capability” — he did express concerns about Russian advancements in its development of submarines and cruise missiles.“We’ve seen creation of new classes of all sorts of submarines and ships. I’m more concerned with submarine warfare,” Foggo said earlier on Friday while addressing the Atlantic Council in Washington.
He said six of the Kilo-class subs were either “operating in the Black Sea or the eastern Mediterranean,” where “they’re firing the Kalibr missile,” a Russian-made cruise missile that he called “very capable,” saying it could reach “any one of the capitals of Europe.”