 |
| |
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:21
|
|
Long story part I.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, Serb, I think we need to have a little talk... |
Anytime mr.Floyd, anytime....
quote:
I'm taking out allies to give Russia an advantage. If we put in allies and let the US use air and naval bases in places such as Japan, Germany, England, etc., it's just too easy. |
Now you see- you are nothing without allies.
Do you really think that f.e. Germany or Japan will let you use their territory for attacks against Russia? I doubt that they decide to commite such suicide. The war vs. Yuogoslavia it's one case, war with Russia is absolutely different case. More likely that they simly tell you to get the **** out and don't involve them in your showdowns.
quote:
What, all 1 one of them? |
Yes, one all of them. 
quote:
"Disposals/Reserve: The first two units of the class are in reserve: Admiral Ushakov (ex-Kirov) inactive but nominally in commission in the Northern Fleet since suffering a nuclear accident in 1990. She entered a shipyard for overhaul in 1999, but funds are lacking; it is very unlikely that she will return to service. Admiral Lazarev (ex-Frunze) has been inoperable in the Pacific Fleet since the early 1990's; the Navy is reportedly asking for donations to fund her repair, but she is unlikely to see further service." |
Put this source into place where the sun is never shine. The data on this site is greatly exaggerated in USA favor. It is said there that we have only one "Typhoon" class submarine. It's Bullsh*t.We have 7 Typhoons. Few weeks ago 7th sub was build.
http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/941.htm
As for "Kirov" class. We have 4 of them. Two currently in repair. In case of war they will repaired very quickly.
quote:
This means that Russia is left with one more in overhaul status, the Admiral Nakhimov, and one that is active, the Petr Velikiy. I will admit that these are nice ships, but so what? One Kirov isn't going to be able to defeat the US Navy, and almost certainly not even one US carrier group. |
It was designed exactly for this purpose- to sink US carrier groups. I don't think that you know more about naval warfare then people who created the largest and most powerfull surface ship ever. So, when creators of Kirov sayng that this ship is capable to fight efficientlu vs. US carrier group I preffer to beleive them then to arm chair general like you.
quote:
Even assuming 1 Kirov vs. 1 Nimitz, ignoring escorts and submarines, the Nimitz-class carrier comes out way ahead. Right now, there are over 70 aircraft stationed on it, although there are room for around 100 that could be stationed on one in a pinch. But I'll just assume the minimum of 70. This air wing would be able to put up enough airborne radar to create a bubble around the carrier, where if anything entered the bubble the carrier would know immediately. The Kirov has no such abilities, so it is very clear that the US carrier would be able to locate the Russian Kirov long before the Kirov located it. If you throw satellites into the mix, the US ship would be located a bit sooner, but so would the Kirov. This means that the carrier can maneuver in such a way as to attack the Kirov at whatever time it wants to - probably around 3 am. |
First of all this ship not only able to deffend itself against massive air attack, but it also could protect nearby ships from air attack. It could fight efficently against up to 90 aircrafts simulateously. Second, how your fighters could protect your carrier from massive missile attack? 20 "Granit" type cruise missiles with uniqe guidence system is more then enough to bring rightful justice upon heads of unliky invaders I wonder if you will able to intercept single missile.
So, when Kirov will be within fire range, no more, no less the fire range is 550km. He just launch its missiles, that's all- say 'orevuar' to your carrier and its escort. Even if some fighters will be able to take of from carrier before the missiles will hit, the pilots of those fighters will be more concerned where the f*ck they should land their plane, then about attack on "Kirov". I can guaranty a nice panic among them, but even if somebody still decide to attack, it will de destroyed by SAM defences of Kirov.
quote:
And let's not forget that the Russian radar systems are not as good as the American AEGIS system. This means that they are not able to track as many targets at once, or detect aircraft from as long of ranges, to my knowledge. |
And let's not forget this says an American armchair general.
Tell me please, does the abbreviate "S-300" tell's you about something? If not, then I could tell you that this is SAM battery with fire and forget principle. It can simultaneously track 9 targets and independently fire at 6 targets, one or two SAMs to each. It can hit targets flying at speeds of up to 10000 km/h at altitudes from 25 to 30000 meters and has a range of 3-150 km. Missile speed 2100m/sec (7M)
As long as your fighters will aproach to Kirov closer then 150 km...Surprise, surprise... BANG.... bandit is down. If any of your fighters is able to carry air to surface missiles with range greater then 150km please let me know. Until it happen forget that your planes could aproach to Kirov closer then 150Km.
And 12 S-300F launchers installed on "Kirov" it's just a first, longe-range stage of defence. It have also medium range and close raqnge defense systems like: OSA and Kashtan air-defence missile/gun system. Which provides defence against a range of precision weapons including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles and air bombs, aircraft, and small naval ships.
And btw, your AEGIS system will not save you from our "Mosqito" (NATO "Sunburn").
The Navy carrier task force has increasingly been criticized as being too vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. The Aegis defense system now mounted on twenty-seven Aegis-class cruisers was designed to protect carriers from precision-guided missiles. However, the Sunburn , produced by Russia cruises at 1,700 miles per hour out to a maximum range of 55 miles. It travels at an altitude of sixty feet and then attacks the ship at twenty feet, having reached its target in under two minutes from launch. The U. S . Navy considered the Sunburn so effective, it tried to buy one in 1995.
"Mosqito" is one of the main weapons of our fleet. So forget about "peice a cake campaign" and prepare your ass for buttkicking.
quote:
Now, if you want to throw in escorts, I don't know what a Russian battle group is generally composed of, so I can't really comment on that until someone is kind enough to tell me what is in one. I think it's clear, though, that on their own merits, a US Nimitz-class carrier, even with a minimal number of aircraft, is certainly superior to the Russian Kirov. |
Kepp dreaming. Your only chance against Kirov is numbers. Single US Nimitz-class carrier has no chances vs single Kirov class ship. Nash monster porvet vash carrier za hui sobachii, kak Tuzik grelku.
quote:
And remember, the US has 12 carriers, compared to only 1 Russian Kirov. |
First of all 2 Fully operational and 2 in repair, second on Pacific you have only 6 carriers vs. 1 "Kirov". 6 vs. 1 is much better chances then 12 vs. 1. But considering that Pacific Ocean is pretty big, I wounder that it will be more then 1 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 3. Which is much better chances.
BUT, Kirov is just one, big, butt-kicking monster. In accordance with our doctrine your carrier gruops should be destroyed by our submarines f.e. like Oscar II class. When your scientists will invent something equal to our "Shkval" torpedo (which your spy Edmond Pope tried to steal recently (btw, on Russian "Pope" means ass )) then let me know.
The missile has no on-board targeting systems, but due to its high speed (370kmph) and stealth its intended target has no way of detecting and evading the missile in short time of the missile's underwater "flight." Naturally, the missile is 100% jam-proof and there are no defenses against this type of weapon in any navy in the world (including Russian).
quote:
When did I say we would invade? I said the most ground fighting that would take place would be probably in the Russian Far East, or other fringe areas where US special forces could make hit and run strikes, and possibly a limited invasion of the Russian Far East in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island, with US Marines, as a propaganda boost, and as a way to base US fighters in range of Soviet Pacific naval bases. I can also see the US going after the Trans-Siberian railway with special forces - Russia can't protect the entire coastline, nor can they protect the entire Trans-Siberian railway, and if the US cuts it in a few places, that makes it all the more easy to strike at the Russian Far East, and isolate ground and naval forces in the area. |
Hit and run tactic? Yes, I must admit that your special forces during last operation in Afghanistan showed that they are pretty good with this tactic. At least partitialy. They are very good in "run" component of this tactic, furthermore I guess it could be called "run with tail between their legs" tactic. As for "hit" component Hmmm...they didn't showed this component actully.
What type of forces you gone use to isolate our ground and naval forces in the area? With special forces?
Don't make me laugh. Propaganda boost?
Trans Siberian Railway?
As a man who have a diplom of Railroad engineer and who worked for this Transiberian Railroad few years ago, I could assure you, that Transiberian railroad is one of our most important strategic objects. In case of war it will be in top five most guarded strategic objects.
If you will not invade who do you suggest you could win this war? You are forget that we are not Iraq (sure it's peice a cake to strike tanks from skies in desert) and not Yugoslavia who didn't have serious air defences.
You will not invade, because you don't have balls for this (You hasn't balls for ground camaign vs. Yugoslavia and we are far not the Yufoslavia). If you will not invade you will not win. And you will not invade, because your society will never accept huge human casualities. I can guaranty, that your casualities will be HUGE, MUCH more huge then you ever faced in your history. So, you will never invade Russia and you will never win. Case is closed.
Last edited by Serb on 04-08-2002 at 19:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:21
|
|
Long story part II.
quote:
A single carrier battle group has the combat power of many small nations. This isn't exactly a minor thing - US carrier can project themselves anywhere around the globe, and any Russian naval forces foolish enough to sortie would inevitably be destroyed. They'd be tracked from the ports by US satellites, nibbled at by submarines, hit by US strategic bombers, and annihilated by US aircraft carriers. |
We are not "small nation", you constanyly forget about this. You could save your tricks, you briliant air compaign for countries who don't have air forces or ground air defences, because it wouldn't work with us. If you want to crush us prepare for ground war, prepare for blood bath, for millions casualties.
quote:
However, this from Hazegray, again:
"Due to continued political, economic and societal chaos in Russia, the Fleet is in a badly deteriorated state. Even those ships that remain in commission and theoretically operational are generally unable to deploy, due to lack of trained crews and lack of funds to buy fuel and stores. In general maintenance is minimal or nonexistent, and there are no funds to conduct much-needed overhauls, even for major fleet units. Many ships have been abandoned when repairs or refits came due.
This list identifies those units believed to remain operational, but most of these units are unable to deploy for the reasons cited above. Ships in refit are listed only when there is a reasonable chance of them returning to service. Ships laid up pending refit generally are listed, as they could return to service if funding became available." |
What a nightmare Apocalypce today The devil is among us I guess know his name. How did you said the name of this guy? Hazegay ? It's him.
Yes, we have slight problems with maintenance of our fleet. Yes, we lost many ships due lack of funds. But remaining forces is still able to give a serios butt-kicking. If we talk about numbers of surface ships in Pacific theater (Pacific fleet is the weakest of our fleets) then situation there is 1-2.5, in your favor. As for subs I guess situation for us there is better then with our surface ships, but I guess you still have advantage in numbers. So, what? If you think that it will be easy walk for your navy you are mistaken. Prepare for heavy casualities. 1:3 It is not a small, but is not a huge advantage.
quote:
We won't look at ballistic missile submarines, because we are assuming no nukes (not that no nukes exist, just that none will be used, hence SSBNs still exist, and while the US might try to deploy a few as fast attack boats, Russia certainly would not). |
Or perhaps, because you piss in your pants seeing another Russian monster- the largest and most powerfull submarine ever created by humans? I'm talking about Typhoon class of course.:
The Typhoons, code-named Akula (shark) by the Soviets, were by far the largest subs ever built, with a submerged displacement now given (by the Russians) as 48,000 tons.
Is any of your subs have a sauna, a waterfall or an aviary? Is any of your subs have an endurance of 120 days? I guess not.
This sub is swimming butt-kicking rock, our Doom Star.
http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/941.htm
http://www.milparade.ru/security/130.html
quote:
Your best surface attack boats (SSGNs) are the Krasnodar (Oscar-II) class, of which Russia has 8, 5 of which are part of Pacific Fleet, and 3 of which belong to the Northern Fleet. These are intended for strikes against US aircraft carriers. |
Wrong data. 9 Subs, 5 belong to Northern Fleet and 4 belong to Pacific Fleet (Hazegay sucks again)
quote:
However, US aircraft carriers are strongly protected by at least 2 US attack submarines (Los Angeles class or better), as well as ASW frigates and destroyers, as well as S-3 Viking ASW aircraft operating from the carrier, and various ASW helicopters operating from the carrier and escorts. A US carrier group is a very tough target for even a group of these SSGNs, and almost impossible for a single one to hit. This doesn't even bring into the picture US anti-missile capabilities - the CIWS alone is highly capable, even assuming the carriers escorts don't get a chance to go after the missiles. |
Who told you that your carriers will be attacked by single submarine?
quote:
But, the real point here is that these 8 SSGNs are unsuited for anti-submarine operations, which is very important. |
Who told you that they can't attack other subs?
quote:
Russia's most modern attack submarine is the Akula/Akula-II class, of which they possess 11, divided fairly evenly among the Pacific and Northern fleets. |
14 Subs of "Akula" class, 14 not 11(Hazegay sucks again)
http://www.naval-technology.com/pro...kula/index.html
quote:
Other modern SSNs include 3 Sierra-I/IIs, and 8 Victor-IIIs. |
At least 6 Sierra-I/II
http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/945.htm,
I'm too lazy to check but, What about "Oskar", "Charlie "Kilo", "Tango", "Juliett", "Romeo", "Foxtrot", "Whiskey", "Zulu" and other classes?
(Hazegay sucks again) and your 22 vs. 52 is total BullSH*T
quote:
The Seawolf class is regarded as the best attack submarine in the world, according to Hazegray, and really has no equal in the Russian navy. The Los Angeles-class is also excellent, and while some of the older boats are not as good as the Akula or Akula-II, most of these submarines have been extensively improved and overhauled over the years, bringing most of them above the standard of Russian submarines. |
Blah...Blah...Blah.....
You still didn't realized that Hazegay suck's? The most silent subs in the world are "Severodvinsk" class, 3 currently under construction.
quote:
Assuming that the US divides it's submarine forces evenly across the Atlantic and Pacific, and Russia concentrates every SSN it has in, say, the Pacific, the US would still outnumber the Russians in the Pacific by a ratio of 22 to 26 - this would be a fairly even fight, and both sides would take casualties, although in the end I think the US would win this, due primarily to the presence of a Seawolf and the superiority of US training, maintenance, and, in many cases, equipment and SONAR. |
Because you operate with shitty Hazengay's data your calculations below are wrong too.
quote:
Further, in order to deploy into the Atlantic at all, most Russian submarines will have to pass the GIUK SOSUS line, as well as face large SOSUS networks in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The US would know the approximate locations of many of the Russian submarines, and could maneuver with a 2 to 1 superiority over each Russian sub, even assuming the US retained two submarines for each of the 12 aircraft carriers for defense (ignoring the fact that not all 12 carriers can be deployed at once in one area, indeed, not more than 2-4 per ocean could be deployed at one time). |
Keep dreaming. With the same success you could detect black cat in dark room.
quote:
So, I think every important factor one can look at shows that the US has a huge superiority in submarines. If Russia tries to make up the difference by introducing it's SSBNs into the mix as attack subs, the US will respond in kind, and the US outnumbers Russia in terms of SSBNs by a ratio of 18 to 12, as well as having, in most cases, far more advanced SSBNs, with the exception of the single Russian Typhoon, which is probably about the equal of an Ohio. |
Wrong again, 7 "Delta" + 6 "Typhoon"= 13 SSBN vs. your 14 "Ohio" which you should have in accordance with START 2.
http://www.naval-technology.com/pro...elta/index.html
http://www.naval-technology.com/pro...hoon/index.html
But, as long as you are out ABM treaty, forget thet we'll scrap a single "Typhoon"- "which is probably about the equal of an Ohio", my ass. Ohio suck's in compare with Typhoon. That why you always demanded that we should start scraping them. Huya lysogo, ne dozhdetesa.
quote:
Further, the US would be able to time it's attacks against Russian surface forces - various US submarines could launch missile attacks against Russian surface ships at random times, followed up by strikes by US aircraft. |
We could do exactly the same.
quote:
In addition, immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities, US heavy bombers (B-52Hs, B-1Bs, and B-2As) would be able to launch a single coordinated strike against Russian bomber bases on the Kola Peninsula. Because of the fact that Russia would need carrier locations before it could send its bombers after US carrier groups, it is possible that a large number of Backfire bombers could be caught on the ground. But in any case, US bomber attacks (launching standoff cruise missiles in the case of the B-52s and B-1s, with other attacks carried out by B-2s) combined with very likely submarine attacks, these airbases would be very heavily damaged. Russia has no capability to do a similar thing to US bases, which are located deep within the United States, in places such as Louisiana, New Mexico, and Wyoming. |
Oh really?
Our long rang aviation can reach any city on US territory easily. Perhaps you forget which plane is the largest and most magnifisient supersonic strategic bomber ever created? Welcome to magic world of Tu-160 "Blackjack" a plane with 44 World's records:
http://globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-160_blackjack.htm
Just don't start whinning that we lost most off them. We have a lot of them and not long ago took some more from Ukraine. So within few hours of war greet a waterfall of cruise missiles launched from our Tu-95 and Tu-160 deep within your territory.
quote:
But let's assume that Russia launches an immediate massive bomber attack on a US carrier. Their maximum possible net gain for this battle is one US carrier, with moderate losses to their own aircraft. It is unlikely in the extreme they would be able to launch concentrated attacks against two or three US carriers, simply because these carriers would most likely not be in range upon the outbreak of war, and Russia would be lucky to have an immediate location on even one US carrier in range. |
I told you we are not Japanese. In accordance with our doctrine your carriers we'll be destroyed by subs and missile cruisers.
quote:
So, I think it's clear that the US would win the naval war, which I maintain is the only part that would be significant. There would not be massive air battles, simply because without allies, the US has no forward bases, at least nothing closer than Okinawa. Further, large ground combat is also unlikely, except, as I said, isolated Special Forces strikes (which Russia could POSSIBLY do as well, although I doubt it), and possible US ground forces seizing Russian territory in the Kamchatka area. |
So, without invasion how do you suggest to wipe floor with us? If you'll invade we'll throw you back to ocean.
So' forget your silly claims about wipe of floor and try to be less arrogant next time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaShi
The US always had the military advantage over Russia. It wasn't until after the fall the of the Soviet Union that it released how far. Probably a good thing though. |
Actually, the Pentagon always knew. It has been revealed after every so called "gap" that the Soviets didn't have anywhere near the forces that the Pentagon was claiming and that the Pentagon knew it.
Retired military generals and colonels tend to get jobs as consultants for corporations that do business with the military. There's a lot of corruption involved in our procurement. Lockheed needs more money, gosh, theres a fighter gap! Honeywell investors demand more profit, a missile gap!
As to the original question, the US would problem have naval and air superiority (although the Russians have the air superiority planes, we have better pilots and missiles). However, until the US can put troops on the ground, it can't win, and the Russian people would be as one to stop the Americans. Russia isn't so easy to conquer, as everyone who has tried has learned (with the notable exception of the Mongols).
You'd also have the problem of all the US allies refusing to support us, and very possibly doing what they could to stop our aggression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
Everyone: Let me start by saying that nowhere do I say I think the US could invade Russia in an amphibious assault. Yes, I think if we included allies for both sides in the mix, and we had the use of European bases, we could invade European Russia successfully, but I by no means think the US on its own could invade Russia. I've never said this.
Serb: Let me ask you one simple question. Do you believe that the Russian Navy would defeat the US Navy, or is it your opinion that the US Navy would win, but the point you're making is that it would take higher losses than I expect? Just to be clear, you understand - one position is reasonable and arguable, the other is not. I'll let you work it out 
As to a detailed response, people at work are throwing me a going away party, so I'll respond later tonight, or, if I'm too drunk, tomorrow sometime.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:21
|
|
David,
Do you ever fought vs. 3 equaly strong as you are fighters at the same time?
As I said in Pacific theater for surface ships of I and II classes you have superiority in numbers 1:3 in your favor. (but our ships a bit bigger then yours). So, chances of our Pacific fleet is small, but it's still able to give you a pretty good butt-kicking. And your claims like- "not single carrier lost and only a few subs lost" is bs. You will receive much larger casualties, much larger.
As for allies, it was you who offered the rules of this scenario- no nukes, no allies.
quote:
but I by no means think the US on its own could invade Russia. I've never said this. |
Assuming all allies stay out of it, and assuming the war stays conventional, who wins in a war between the US and Russia?
Personally, I see no reason to think anything other than that the US would wipe the floor with Russia.
Last edited by Serb on 05-08-2002 at 09:43
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Now you see- you are nothing without allies. |
No, what I said is that without allies, it becomes more even because the US is unable to bring ground or air forces into the picture in significant numbers.
quote:
Do you really think that f.e. Germany or Japan will let you use their territory for attacks against Russia? |
No, but I also doubt the US and Russia will go to war. It's a hypothetical.
quote:
I doubt that they decide to commite such suicide. |
Regardless of how could you think the Russian military is, surely you don't think that in its present state it could take on Europe and Japan, with US backing, and hope to win, right?
quote:
The war vs. Yuogoslavia it's one case, war with Russia is absolutely different case. More likely that they simly tell you to get the **** out and don't involve them in your showdowns. |
And more than likely the US will never fight Russia. So what?
quote:
Put this source into place where the sun is never shine. The data on this site is greatly exaggerated in USA favor. It is said there that we have only one "Typhoon" class submarine. It's Bullsh*t.We have 7 Typhoons. |
The source you cited has not been updated for 5 years.
"© Copyright Bellona // Reproduction recommended if sources stated
CD-version, updated 1997-09-28"
Most likely Hazegray is referring to vessels in active service.
This is supported by the following quote:
"Disposals/Reserve: TK-202 and TK-12 (2nd and 3rd units) discarded by 1996 due to need for repairs/refit; TK-208 (class leader) in overhaul since 1992 and was intended to receive the newer SS-NX-28 Grom SLBM, but will not return to service. TK-13 out of service but could be repaired. TK-17 is also out of service."
quote:
Few weeks ago 7th sub was build. |
A possibility, but why would Russia be building SSBNs in this day and age, and why do you think it would be useful before trials, etc.?
However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - Hazegray was last updated in March, so I'll grant that you could have 2 Typhoons.
quote:
As for "Kirov" class. We have 4 of them. Two currently in repair. In case of war they will repaired very quickly. |
Sorry, even according to YOUR site you are wrong. According to YOUR site:
The Admiral Ushakov is "Inactive since 1990 when there was an accident in the ship's machinery"
The Admiral Lasarev "The ship is based at Severomorsk, but has been laid up over the last few years. It is expected that the vessel will be decommissioned
Admiral Nakhimov
(until 1992 known as Kalinin.) Keel laid down on May 17, 1983. Launched on April 25, 1986, and commissioned on December 30, 1988.
Pyotr Veliky
(until 1992 known as Yury Andropov). Keel laid down on April 25, 1986. Launched on April 25, 1989, and first sea trial completed in autumn 1995. The battle cruiser is scheduled to be transferred to the Pacific Fleet over the course of 1996.[264]
So according to your source you have a maximum of 2 in service, which you state, but it says nothing about the other two undergoing repairs - it says that one was inactive since 1990 and the other has been laid up for years.
However, again, your site is over 5 years out of date, as opposed to Hazegray: "This site last updated 25 March 2002."
According to the much more recent Hazegray site, the Admiral Nakhimov is in overhaul. It's very possible it was active in 1997, when your site was last updated, and has entered overhaul since.
Further, Hazegray further specifies the status of the Ushakov and Lazarev - the Ushakov suffered a nuclear accident in 1990 and is considered very unlikely to return to service, and the Lazarev has been inactive since the early 1990s and the Russian navy is seeking donations for its repair.
Thus, you have one Kirov.
quote:
It was designed exactly for this purpose- to sink US carrier groups. |
So what? The V1 and V2 were designed to end World War 2 - but they didn't. Just because a weapon is designed for a purpose doesn't mean it will necessarily be successful. Surely you will admit that much.
quote:
I don't think that you know more about naval warfare then people who created the largest and most powerfull surface ship ever. |
I tend to trust US naval doctrine more than Russian naval doctrine, given that Russia's last major sea battles occured in the Russo-Japanese War. I won't remind you how that one turned out.
quote:
So, when creators of Kirov sayng that this ship is capable to fight efficientlu vs. US carrier group I preffer to beleive them then to arm chair general like you. |
Yes, the designers of the Kirov certainly have more expertise than I do, but I prefer to rely on the doctrine of the US Navy, which is a historically proven force, unlike the Russian navy, which isn't.
quote:
First of all this ship not only able to deffend itself against massive air attack, but it also could protect nearby ships from air attack. |
Of course, where have I said otherwise? The Kirov is, at least on paper, a very capable ship. My question relies more upon its crew and maintenance than upon its technical abilities. Also, remember that only one US aircraft has to get through to sink or put out of action your ONLY Kirov in service, and I think that's very doable.
quote:
It could fight efficently against up to 90 aircrafts simulateously. |
In theory and according to you, unless you can provide a (non-outdated) source.
quote:
Second, how your fighters could protect your carrier from massive missile attack? 20 "Granit" type cruise missiles with uniqe guidence system is more then enough to bring rightful justice upon heads of unliky invaders |
The whole point of a carrier is that, using its radar aircraft, it can create a bubble around it where other ships cannot enter without being seen. Thus, with adequate tanker support, E-2C Hawkeyes could set up a bubble big enough such that your ONLY Kirov could not come within firing range of the carrier, and the carrier could maneuver in such a manner to keep it that way.
quote:
Tell me please, does the abbreviate "S-300" tell's you about something? If not, then I could tell you that this is SAM battery with fire and forget principle. It can simultaneously track 9 targets and independently fire at 6 targets, one or two SAMs to each. It can hit targets flying at speeds of up to 10000 km/h at altitudes from 25 to 30000 meters and has a range of 3-150 km. Missile speed 2100m/sec (7M) |
Actually I was unaware the Kirov was equipped with the S-300. So point to you. Remember, though, that only one US aircraft has to get through the SAM cloud, and regardless of how well the S-300 did against the rest of the air wing, the Kirov could still be on the bottom.
Back to the real world, though, and you would know that the US would use combined arms tactics to take on a Kirov. It would use both submarines and aircraft, probably from more than one carrier, as well as possibly even bombers firing standoff cruise missiles. I realize that in a real naval engagement the Kirov would be escorted, but then it comes down to a US battlegroup vs. a Russian battlegroup. I've established already in a previous post that the US should easily gain submarine superiority based upon number, technical abilities, maintenance factors, and crew, and a Russian battlegroup could not adequately defend against the triple threat of US submarines, bombers, and naval aviation.
Your entire navy, according to Hazegray, consists of one Kuznetsov (a light carrier by US standards), 1 Kirov, 2 Slavas, and 19 destroyers and 13 frigates of all types. This is split among four main fleet commands (Northern, Pacific, Baltic, and Black) in 2 oceans and 2 seas (Black and Baltic). The warships in the Black and Baltic seas, which include the Moskva (a Slava), two Sovremmennys, one Kerch, one Neustrashimyy, one Kegkiy, two Bessmennyys, and three Bditel'nyy, which comprise a sizable portion of your fleet, would be much less able to concentrate and enter the conflict, particularly the Black Sea forces, which probably would not be allowed to transit the Bosporous.
This means the only naval forces readily available for service against the US Navy are as follows (and remember these are spread throughout two oceans, and even adding in the Baltic Fleet warships would only add a few frigates to the total):
1 Kuznetsov
1 Kirov
1 Slava
17 destroyers of all types
5 frigates of all types
Against this, the US has the following surface assets that are not in extended overhaul status:
7 Nimitz class carriers (with the Eisenhower in extended overhaul)
1 JFK class carrier
1 Enterprise class carrier
2 Kitty Hawk class carrier
27 Ticonderoga class cruisers (VLS and non VLS groups)
33 Arleigh Burke class destroyers (Flights I and II)
20 Spruance class destroyers
35 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (Long and Short Hull groups)
Do you really think the Russian surface fleet would be THAT dangerous to concentrated US naval forces? I think not.
quote:
And btw, your AEGIS system will not save you from our "Mosqito" (NATO "Sunburn").
The Navy carrier task force has increasingly been criticized as being too vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. The Aegis defense system now mounted on twenty-seven Aegis-class cruisers was designed to protect carriers from precision-guided missiles. However, the Sunburn , produced by Russia cruises at 1,700 miles per hour out to a maximum range of 55 miles. It travels at an altitude of sixty feet and then attacks the ship at twenty feet, having reached its target in under two minutes from launch. The U. S . Navy considered the Sunburn so effective, it tried to buy one in 1995. |
Yes, the Sunburn is very nice - assuming you can get into range to launch it, which I highly doubt.
quote:
First of all 2 Fully operational and 2 in repair, second on Pacific you have only 6 carriers vs. 1 "Kirov". 6 vs. 1 is much better chances then 12 vs. 1. But considering that Pacific Ocean is pretty big, I wounder that it will be more then 1 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 3. Which is much better chances. |
I already refuted that. It's really 11 to 1, and the further in the future this conflict is, the greater advantage the US gains.
quote:
BUT, Kirov is just one, big, butt-kicking monster. In accordance with our doctrine your carrier gruops should be destroyed by our submarines f.e. like Oscar II class. When your scientists will invent something equal to our "Shkval" torpedo (which your spy Edmond Pope tried to steal recently (btw, on Russian "Pope" means ass)) then let me know. |
Yes, those torpedos are the biggest problem to the US Navy. However, with the US retaining such a large advantage in submarines, and with the US advantage in SONAR and the SOSUS lines and arrays, I think that your Oscar-IIs would be mostly intercepted and destroyed early in the war, before they became a problem. In any case, in order to hit a carrier, you have to get within range of a carrier, and a US carrier battle group (CVBG) is very formidable - and in case of a war with Russia, very likely to strongly beef up its ASW capabilities by adding more ASW frigates and destroyers into the formation.
quote:
As a man who have a diplom of Railroad engineer and who worked for this Transiberian Railroad few years ago, I could assure you, that Transiberian railroad is one of our most important strategic objects. In case of war it will be in top five most guarded strategic objects. |
Really? You'll guard every mile of the railroad?
quote:
If you will not invade who do you suggest you could win this war? You are forget that we are not Iraq (sure it's peice a cake to strike tanks from skies in desert) and not Yugoslavia who didn't have serious air defences.
You will not invade, because you don't have balls for this (You hasn't balls for ground camaign vs. Yugoslavia and we are far not the Yufoslavia). If you will not invade you will not win. |
Winning a war has nothing to do with conquering the other country, it has everything to do with accomplishing the goals of the war. The US goals would logically be to destroy the conventional power projection assets of Russia - namely their large naval forces, submarine arm, and strategic bombers. This can and would be accomplished early on, and if Russia wished to extend the war rather than just giving up, that would play to the massive US advantages in shipbuilding - what exactly will Russia do, swim a 10 million man army to New York? No, they would have to build a fleet capable of defeating the US Navy, and this would take years, even if the size of the current US Navy remained static. If the US Navy increased proportionally, which is very possible given the greater shipbuilding potential of the United States, Russia could never hope to defeat the US Navy.
quote:
Yes, we have slight problems with maintenance of our fleet. |
Slight problems, eh? I'd say they're more than slight. In any case, the US has NO problems maintaining its navy.
quote:
Yes, we lost many ships due lack of funds. |
I'd say so, given that you are asking for donations just to repair a Kirov.
quote:
If we talk about numbers of surface ships in Pacific theater (Pacific fleet is the weakest of our fleets) then situation there is 1-2.5, in your favor. |
Actually the Baltic Fleet is your weakest, but in any case, the ratio is much better than 2.5-1 in the Pacific. I suggest you refer to the numbers I posted above.
quote:
As for subs I guess situation for us there is better then with our surface ships, but I guess you still have advantage in numbers. |
I already told you it is over 2 to 1. Even if you concentrated all your subs against half of ours, the US would still have a numerical advantage.
quote:
1:3 It is not a small, but is not a huge advantage. |
You don't think 3:1 is a huge advantage? What would YOU consider huge? Oh, I get it - a huge advantage would be the ratio of US to Russian SURFACE warships
quote:
This sub is swimming butt-kicking rock, our Doom Star. |
Sure, as long as we're talking about nuclear war, but what's the point of that?
quote:
Wrong data. 9 Subs, 5 belong to Northern Fleet and 4 belong to Pacific Fleet (Hazegay sucks again) |
My source is far more up to date than yours, by about 5 years, so we'll just go with mine.
That ninth Krasnodar/Oscar-II was the Kursk, just FYI.
quote:
Who told you that they can't attack other subs? |
But I thought they would be going after US carriers? And in any case, they are not dedicated attack submarines, and would definitely lose to even an early Los Angeles.
quote:
14 Subs of "Akula" class, 14 not 11(Hazegay sucks again) |
Sorry. According to Hazegray, which is up to date, both the K-284 and K-322 are laid up and unlikely to return to service. That still leaves one submarine, which is likely the K-267, which has not even been commissioned yet, or else it refers to a boat that was decommissioned years ago.
quote:
At least 6 Sierra-I/II |
Wrong again. The third planned Sierra-II was cancelled prior to commissioning, leaving two of those in service. Of the Sierra-Is, the K-239 will probably not return to service, with the only other one being the K-276. Thus, you have 3 Sierra-I/IIs.
quote:
I'm too lazy to check but |
Obviously.
quote:
"Oskar", "Charlie "Kilo", "Tango", "Juliett", "Romeo", "Foxtrot", "Whiskey", "Zulu" and other classes? |
"Discarded Classes: All 'Delta-II' class out of service by the end of 1996; all 'Delta-I' stricken by 1998, all 'Yankee' discarded or converted by the end of 1993; last 'Hotel' decommissioned 1991, last 'Golf' decommissioned 1990."
"Reserve Classes: The two 'Oscar-I' class SSGNs were stricken in 1997.
Discarded Classes: The three 'Yankee Notch' SSGNs (converted SSBNs) were laid up by the end of 1997. The single 'Papa' was discarded in 1991; all 'Charlie-II' class were discarded by 1996 (one retained in reserve commission for possible trials use); last 'Charlie-I' class discarded 1992-1994; the last 'Echo-II' class were discarded 1993-1995. The last 'Juliett' class SSGs were discarded in 1993."
"Discarded Classes: Single 'Mike' class sunk 1989; all 'Victor-II' and 'Victor-I' discarded by 1996; all 'Alfa' class withdrawn from service 1990-1991 but one retained through 1995 for experimental purposes."
"Discarded Classes: All previous submarine classes discarded; a few 'Whiskey' and 'Romeo' class hulks remain as immobile training facilities. The last 'Whiskey' was stricken in 1998, and all surviving 'Tango' class are in reserve, unservicable."
That answer your question about those submarines?
"The most silent subs in the world are "Severodvinsk" class, 3 currently under construction."
Actually only 1 is under construction, but if you want to count submarines under construction then you'd better take note of the four Virginia class boats under construction (Virginia, Texas, Hawaii, North Carolina), as well as the 26 others planned.
quote:
Because you operate with shitty Hazengay's data your calculations below are wrong too. |
***** all you want, but your date is five years old according to the its "Site Last Updated" listing.
quote:
We could do exactly the same. |
How? The US has a more than two to one submarine advantage, and we have 11 heavy carriers to your 1 "heavy aviation CRUISER".
quote:
Our long rang aviation can reach any city on US territory easily. Perhaps you forget which plane is the largest and most magnifisient supersonic strategic bomber ever created? Welcome to magic world of Tu-160 "Blackjack" a plane with 44 World's records: |
None of those records include anything having to do with stealth, my friend. They would have to overfly Canada, where they would be detected by US NORAD stations and intercepted - even if they successfully bombed any US target, they would be ravaged by US air superiority fighters. If we really felt like it, we could use the anywhere between 4-8 experimental F-22A Raptor stealth fighters we have in our arsenal. Or you could fly across the Atlantic, where you would still be detected and intercepted by US fighters.
quote:
I told you we are not Japanese. In accordance with our doctrine your carriers we'll be destroyed by subs and missile cruisers. |
But I'm telling you, those missile cruisers and submarines will not exist, and even if some did still exist, they would be EXTREMELY outnumbered by US naval forces.
quote:
If you'll invade we'll throw you back to ocean. |
Most likely, if we attempt a massive invasion, which is why I don't support such a move. I support limited ground insertions in Kamchatka using Marines, light infantry, and airborne forces, in order to take out the submarine base at Petropavlovsk and secure Alaska from possible attack. Good luck reinforcing Kamchatka, by the way, with anything significant, considering the fact that it is 6000 miles away from European Russia, and the only large transportation asset is the Trans-Siberian railroad, which consists of basically a double track. If you want to play the buildup game, the US will win, if for no other reason than logistics.
One more point, regarding your air force. After operations against Chechnya, your fighters and tactical aircraft were almost out of spare parts, and the stockpiles still have not been rebuilt.
Think what would happen in air battles against the US, who has no such supply problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
No no no no you got it all wrong, gentlemen.
In that scenario Russia would attack Finland ASAP, to secure strategically very important area for that kind of war. No question about it. They might even ask if we would let them come to here and secure areas, but we would say no way jose, and it would be war between us.
Then you americans would come flag waving with hotdogs in your mouths and say we need to use your country to attack, and if not, russians are gonna do it anyway, let us defend you. We would say no, that's sure ticket to war with the russians, and we don't want it, keep your nose out of our business and go destroy some other countries, please. Well.. the russians would attack anyway, because they'd gain sea access and nice things, and secure st. petersburg etc more.
So it comes to the point where the US and Russia wants our ass, even if we're not in the mood of putting out any. And no offence, you would be both seen as bad and evil threat then. For americans to force us to go war when we don't want to, and russians because they are russians .
So f**k you all, we hate you, welcome to the frozen hell!
ps. we kiss you |
The US doesnt need you. We have Alaska, which would probably be our most strategic position. If Russia wants to waste their time with you, great! Let them take what little resources they need from their eastern front so we can invade.
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
How many times do I have to tell you people that nowhere do I advocate a mass ground invasion of Russia?????
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
An invasion of Russia without allies would simply fail. We would need months to deploy our M1 tank divisions (I believe they took 3 months to deploy the fraction of our tanks that we sent to Iraq, due to their 70 ton mass), and it would be impossible for us to hold a beach head for the length of time without taking horiible casualties. However, if we could change the question to a NATO vs. Warsaw Pact question, where the other countries were just suppliers and such but only the US and Russia fought, well then that would chang everything because western Europe would provide the beach head we would need. |
Young man and this is not a slam at a young person, but we could very well drop several thousand troops in Russia real easy. And if we secured an airfield look out here we come. Slave until you do some time with American forces don't underestimate them, you might be supprise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Both Russia and the US can not be defeated without full-scale invasions. There is no winner if the result is a stalemate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:21
|
|
quote:
No, what I said is that without allies, it becomes more even because the US is unable to bring ground or air forces into the picture in significant numbers. |
Then what about your brilliant power projection? I’m saying once again to you without allies you are nothing. Your power projection no more then a myth without allies.
quote:
No, but I also doubt the US and Russia will go to war. It's a hypothetical. |
You started this bs thread, as you said- “for your own amusement”. Now, when you see how many people here saying that your claims that “USA could easily wipe the floor with Russia” no more then arrogant bs, I would like to know- how your amusement is going? Having fun? I guess that you expected that everybody would support your arrogant claims and US flag waving. I would be very happy if you was an American general, because you David are pretty-shitty general. You are making the worst mistake a general could ever make- you are greatly underestimate your enemy. Such mistakes are usually punished and punished very hard.
quote:
Regardless of how could you think the Russian military is, surely you don't think that in its present state it could take on Europe and Japan, with US backing, and hope to win, right? |
The present state of our military is MUCH better then it was 3-5 ears ago. Your problem is that your opinion based on low grade Hollywood movies, which have nothing common with reality. You believe that we are decoying, while in reality we are moving out of crisis. The nightmares of Yelt sin’s rule are over now. With every year we spent more and more on defense.
Now back to original question. I said that in case conventional war between USA and Russia, your allies in Europe will refuse your requests for “right of passage”. More likely their respond will be smth like this-
“ Dear Americans,
sure we are your friends and partners, and we will always respect an unmatched bravery(  suicidal idiotism) you showed when you attacked Russia, but unfortunately we can’t help you. Sure we believe in your future success ( as much as we believe in existence of Santa Claus) in war against Russia, but for God sake do not involve us in your showdowns. You are very far away from our continent, but Russia is close. It is our houses and factories which will be bombed by Russians, not yours. If you want to get them, fine but leave us alone.”
quote:
The source you cited has not been updated for 5 years.
"© Copyright Bellona // Reproduction recommended if sources stated
CD-version, updated 1997-09-28"
Most likely Hazegray is referring to vessels in active service.
|
This source contain characteristics of subs. For numbers I cited www.naval-technology.com
Sure this cite didn’t have exact picture too and data there exaggerated in USA favor too (because it’s an American cite and it’s normal they advertising their own goods, while trying to blame their competitors. Arm’s trade it’s a business after all, and a pretty dirty business, no fair play here) BUT even considering that this site is not totally objective, it doesn’t have such silly, bullsh*t claims as 1 Typhoon and 1 Kirov as Kaizer-gay’s cite have.
Kaizergay took his data out of his ass. Until you stop to use him as the only source of information I see no reasons to continue this talk.
quote:
A possibility, but why would Russia be building SSBNs in this day and age, and why do you think it would be useful before trials, etc.? |
If you think that it’s piece a cake to construct such sub as Typhoon you are mistaken. It was under construction for years. (Esp. considering slight problems )
quote:
However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - Hazegray was last updated in March, so I'll grant that you could have 2 Typhoons. |
SEVEN, boy, SEVEN.
quote:
According to the much more recent Hazegray site, the Admiral Nakhimov is in overhaul. It's very possible it was active in 1997, when your site was last updated, and has entered overhaul since. |
Pyotr Velikii is a flagship of Northern fleet, Nakhimov of Pacific fleet, third is under repair in docks of Severodvinsk now. Don’t remember which one Ushakov or Lazarev. Fourth could be already repaired or still under repair. But TWO Kirov’s we have for sure- one in Northern fleet, another in Pacific fleet. As for remaining two give me some time and I’ll provide you with link.
quote:
So what? The V1 and V2 were designed to end World War 2 - but they didn't. Just because a weapon is designed for a purpose doesn't mean it will necessarily be successful. Surely you will admit that much. |
It is you who think that V1 and V2 were designed to stop WW2, personally I think that those missiles were designed to deliver explosive warheads to enemy territory. And sure they were successful. But question wasn’t about this, the question was about battle capabilities of Kirov’s class. You said that one single US carrier could destroy Kirov without any support. I said that Kirov was designed to sink US carrier battle groups and have everything to do so, and a single (without escort) carrier will be torn apart by Kirov easily. So, when I need to decide between opinions of engineers who created the largest surface ship in the World and the opinion of American student of Law, surely I’ll be with experts.
quote:
I tend to trust US naval doctrine more than Russian naval doctrine, given that Russia's last major sea battles occured in the Russo-Japanese War. I won't remind you how that one turned out. |
Remind me. I’m 100% sure you know NOTHING about Russo-Japanese war of 1905, except that Japanese won. Your bad, because in case if you known something about those battles you more likely never said that you could destroy Russian fleet within hours with price of few subs. Do research about name “Varyag” and remember one thing- Russkie ne zdayutsa.
And btw, who told you that we don’t have naval battles since 1905? I guess you believe that we didn’t have fleet during WW2?
In 1941 we have 171 ship of main classes in 1942 already 192 and numbers was constantly growing. Kerch, Sevstopol, Odessa, Leningrad, Northern convoys WTF was that if not naval battles. Boy, in compare what type of work our Navy done during WW2 your “great battles” in Pacific are childish games.
quote:
Yes, the designers of the Kirov certainly have more expertise than I do, but I prefer to rely on the doctrine of the US Navy, which is a historically proven force, unlike the Russian navy, which isn't. |
You know it’s very funny bullsh*t David. Doctrines are changing all the time. Old doctrines are much worse then old weapons. If I’m not mistaken some of your civil war generals used brilliant Napoleon’s doctrines and moved their forces in columns like Napoleon 50 years before them. It was historically proven doctrine, but it was also an obsolete doctrine and modern doctrine demanded that troops should be moved in lines. Of course I might be mistaken and you know your history better then I, but is my suggestion that those generals were in deep shi*t using such historically proven doctrines is wrong?
quote:
Also, remember that only one US aircraft has to get through to sink or put out of action your ONLY Kirov in service, and I think that's very doable. |
I doubt that one hit could destroy such ship as Kirov, certainly you would need much more then one hit.
quote:
In theory and according to you, unless you can provide a (non-outdated) source. |
Look on naval-techologis.com or Jane battleships or whatever Western source. But simple calculations could lead you to this number. It has 12 batteries of S-300F, everyone could track 9 targets simultaneously and fire at 6 targets simultaneously. 12*6=72 targets. As long as missile is launched, it reloaded automatically, it took a few seconds and battery could fire again. Total number of S-300F missiles a Kirov class ship carrying is 96 missiles. So, at one single moment it could fire at 72 targets, but within few seconds needed for reloading it could launch remaining 24 missiles. So, the maximum is 96 for long rang combat. But Kirov also has 80 medium ranged missiles and excellent close range missile/artillery defensive complex Kashtan which especially good against precision weapons, missiles, bomb, smart bombs etc. So, as for me it is more then capable to fight against 90 planes at one time.
quote:
The whole point of a carrier is that, using its radar aircraft, it can create a bubble around it where other ships cannot enter without being seen. Thus, with adequate tanker support, E-2C Hawkeyes could set up a bubble big enough such that your ONLY Kirov could not come within firing range of the carrier, and the carrier could maneuver in such a manner to keep it that way. |
OK. Lets analyze a hypothetical situation Kirov vs. Nimitz. Sure we could analyze when Nimitz has an escort and Kirov has an escort, but it is much complicated and I guess it doesn’t change much, because our battle group would consist of smaller then Kirov missile cruisers, destroyers and subs for ATTACK on your carrier with missiles. And your group would consist of Aegis cruisers, destroyers and subs for PROTECTION of main weapon of your battle group- carrier and its aircrafts. CARRIER is a main weapon of your battle group. The main weapons of carrier are of course its fighters, but considering that our ships have outstanding air DEFENSE your fighters don’t scare them much. CRUISE MISSILES are main weapons of our battle group. What do you have against this weapon? Aegis cruisers. Yeah it’s pretty good, but not for our missiles. Not single country of the world has such missiles as we have. What do you have against group of “Granits” flying on your carrier? A group which undetectable for your radars, because this group is flew on extremely low attitudes with only one single- leader missile which flew on ballistic trajectory and which leads entire (undetectable group of missiles) to its target? And if it’s shot down it replaced by another missile from main group. Not single country has analogs of guidance system of our “Granit” missiles. Considering its high speed, sneakiness and huge devastating effect (why do you think your generals used word “Shipwreck” for this missile in NATO classification?) I guess your carrier is doomed. You have no DEFENSE against main weapon of our battle group.
Summary: We have defense against your battle group, you haven’t defense against our battle group.
Now return to our hypothetical situation.
As I said the range of Kirov’s prime weapon- 20 “Granit” cruise missiles is 550km. First of all, it means that it could fire at your carrier from distance of 550km. Tell me, could your fighters create a bubble with radius of 550km? I doubt. You know, planes should be refueled time after time. If you will send them to such long distances it means that they will stay in their position a very little amount of time. BUT even if yes, it changes nothing. Sure, in modern warfare it’s hard to imagine that two large battle groups could remain unnoticed by satellites, so more likely both of battle groups will know where to find each other. But, again hypothetically,( if you so love your idea about bubbles) let’s remove satellites from the game. First of all how long your fighters will create this bubble? 24 hours a day? Don’t make me laugh, you’ll need a huge amount of fuel for this and people should rest time after time. And without satellites it might took days if not weeks for battle groups to find each other. BUT (again hypothetically) even with bubble 24 hours a day. Tell me, WTF it changes?
IF (again hypothetically), your carrier will notice our Kirov earlier, what are the actions of your carrier then? Two choices: attack or run away.
1) Attack
First of all there is no way that your carrier could launch all its fighters at the same time. Every tack off took amount of time and I guess launch of say 80 fighters will took a pretty big amount of time. A hypothetical suggestion that every tack off took one minute gives us 80 minutes. And I guess take off preparations require larger period of time. Notice, that planes which took off among the first already an hour in air when last fighters took off.
But even if so (again hypothetically) you are launched all fighters. So what? Fighter is not the same as strategic bomber it has much shorter operational range. Sure all depends of fighter’s type, but I wonder if its operational range is MUCH greater then 550 km (fire range of our missiles). So, to launch a massive air attack against Kirov you’ll need to approach it.
Summary:
Your carrier wouldn’t launch a massive air attack against Kirov from safe distance for itself. Because:
To launch massive air attack you need that all of your planes have maximum amount of fuel (to fly on their maximum operational range) and this is very problematic because some of your fighters- which creating the bubble will be already low on fuel, some of them will need a landing. Too lift all your planes you need time and difference on fuel level between first fighter and last fighter will be very serious. It means that massive air attack (of all fighters) is possible only on operational range of fighter, which has the lowest fuel level. It means that massive air attack is possible only on much shorter range then single fully refueled fighter could fly. And I don’t see any possibility for MASSIVE AIR ATTACK on Kirov from safe distance. So if your carrier will notice our Kirov earlier it gives him nothing. All he could to is to send wings to attack Kirov, but for Kirov SAM wings are not a problem.
2) Run away from Kirov.
Best choice, no doubt, because as longer Kirov approach closer then 550km he just launch his missiles and turn back. And you have no chance to save your carrier then. As long as your carrier sunk, you lost the main weapon of your battle group- fighters. So run away it’s carrier’s best choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:21
|
|
quote:
Back to the real world, though, and you would know that the US would use combined arms tactics to take on a Kirov. It would use both submarines and aircraft, probably from more than one carrier, as well as possibly even bombers firing standoff cruise missiles. |
That’s what I was saying you long ago. Your only chance against Kirov is numbers. This ship has anti-sub equipment as standard Russian BPLK- Big Anti Submarine Ship (which was designed to hunt subs). It includes torpedo tubes, bombs, mines, anti-subs helicopters etc. For subs it’s the same hard to kill target as for aircrafts. As for cruise missiles, for S-300, Osa and Kashtan there is absolutely no difference what to shot down aircraft or cruise missile. Again, this ship is huge, butt-kicking Leviathan. Your only chance against him is superiority in numbers. Until he has ammo he will kick butts as long as he out of missiles and shells he is yours to destroy, but only God knows what amount of damage it able to bring to your fleet before it will be out of ammo.
quote:
Your entire navy, according to Hazegray, consists of one Kuznetsov (a light carrier by US standards), 1 Kirov, 2 Slavas, and 19 destroyers and 13 frigates of all types. This is split among four main fleet commands (Northern, Pacific, Baltic, and Black) in 2 oceans and 2 seas (Black and Baltic). |
It’s according to Kaizer gay. But I guess I should believe one of our admirals more then to yours mysterious whatever gay. Not so long ago I saw an interview with one of our Pacific Fleet admirals. During this interview he constantly complain that on Pacific fleet we only have 19 ships of I and II classes against American 56 ships. During this interview he begging for money and saying all the time that 19 ships is not enough quantity of ships, that he needs better funds to move more ships from reserve.
So, we have a bunch of ships which currently in reserve. With proper funds they could return to active duty very quickly. I prefer to believe to our admiral then to Kaizergrey.
quote:
This means the only naval forces readily available for service against the US Navy are as follows (and remember these are spread throughout two oceans, and even adding in the Baltic Fleet warships would only add a few frigates to the total):
1 Kuznetsov
1 Kirov
1 Slava
17 destroyers of all types
5 frigates of all types
|
It’s just ridiculous. This data took out of Hazardgay’s ass and multiply divided.
I only hope that your generals will you his data when the times will come. The less you know about real forces of your enemy the worse for you.
quote:
Yes, the Sunburn is very nice - assuming you can get into range to launch it, which I highly doubt. |
You doubt, but your admirals are not. 55km is pretty nice range, and… surprise, SURPRISE… it is not its maximum range it was artificially reduced to 55km in accordance with some kind of agreement. But in case of war sure this barrier will be removed.
quote:
I already refuted that. It's really 11 to 1, and the further in the future this conflict is, the greater advantage the US gains. |
At least 2. First is on Northern fleet, second on Pacific. But more likely 3. I’m 100% sure that one under repair now in Severodvinsk. None of four was decommissioned, so remaining should be in service or under repair.
quote:
Yes, those torpedos are the biggest problem to the US Navy. |
Just notice, SINCE LATE 70S. This technology is almost 30 years old, BUT YOU STILL DIDN’T CREATED SOMETHING EQUAL!!!
quote:
However, with the US retaining such a large advantage in submarines, and with the US advantage in SONAR and the SOSUS lines and arrays, I think that your Oscar-IIs would be mostly intercepted and destroyed early in the war, before they became a problem. In any case, in order to hit a carrier, you have to get within range of a carrier, and a US carrier battle group (CVBG) is very formidable - and in case of a war with Russia, very likely to strongly beef up its ASW capabilities by adding more ASW frigates and destroyers into the formation |
Blah….Blah…..Blah….
I guess I should tell to someone who believes in stories about SOSUS lines, arrays and the rest of this bs one story.
Sure you heard about “Kursk”. Do you know that Commander of “Kursk” was awarded by medal “Golden Star of Hero of Russian Federation”? This is the highest Russian award. Do you know why he received Golden Star and title of Hero? I’ll tell you. Few years ago in Mediterranean “Kursk” made a successful training attack on US battle group. The “Kursk” engaged at firing range to your carrier and made a “training launch” of its torpedoes while it was absolutely unnoticed. After his “training target was destroyed” he just swim away. Your entire Fleet tried to chase “Kursk” but failed. When Kursk returned from this raid commander was awarded by medal “Golden Star of Hero” and various medals awarded other crewmembers also.
And you are saying that our Oskar-II will be intercepted early in the war?
More likely your Carriers will be sunk because of our Oskars-II early in the war.
quote:
Really? You'll guard every mile of the railroad? |
Every bridge, every major station. There is no need to guard every mile. If destroyed, tracks could be replaced within few hours. And btw, I can’t see how your special forces could operate deep within our territory.
quote:
Winning a war has nothing to do with conquering the other country, it has everything to do with accomplishing the goals of the war. The US goals would logically be to destroy the conventional power projection assets of Russia - namely their large naval forces, submarine arm, and strategic bombers. |
Missiles is our projection assets, MISSILES. We always bet on missiles, form the beginning of cold war. Within several minutes of war you should expect Pearl Harbor II. No nukes? Fine. We have missiles with conventional warheads. So the size of your fleet will be greatly decreased within hours.
quote:
This can and would be accomplished early on, and if Russia wished to extend the war rather than just giving up, that would play to the massive US advantages in shipbuilding - what exactly will Russia do, swim a 10 million man army to New York? No, they would have to build a fleet capable of defeating the US Navy, and this would take years, even if the size of the current US Navy remained static. If the US Navy increased proportionally, which is very possible given the greater shipbuilding potential of the United States, Russia could never hope to defeat the US Navy. |
A bunch of mistakes.
First off all, you greatly underestimate the possibilities of mobilization economy. In 1941 Hitler out produced SU almost twice. But as long as we switched to mobilization economy, we started to out produce Germany (not actually only Germany but also all Europe conquered by Hitler.) pretty quickly. This is the best type of economy for war time.
Second your industry will be damaged as bad as ours. Forget that you could sit in safety on your continent and making weapons. Not this time. Prepare for explosions, for casualties, for destruction of factories.
quote:
Actually the Baltic Fleet is your weakest, but in any case, the ratio is much better than 2.5-1 in the Pacific. I suggest you refer to the numbers I posted above. |
Your numbers are wrong because they took from Gasegreat. This guy is bullsh*ter and I haven’t a single reason to trust to his data. As long as you consider this Kaizer-hey source trustworthier then f.e. www.Naval-technology.com our talk is pointless.
quote:
That ninth Krasnodar/Oscar-II was the Kursk, just FYI. |
In accordance with www.naval-technology.com Kursk was 10th. And now we have 9 fully operational.
quote:
That answer your question about those submarines? |
You aren’t a lazy boy? Good. Let me guess It’s Shiergay again?
quote:
None of those records include anything having to do with stealth, my friend. |
Really? I though it had something with it. It’s too late now, I need to sleep, but tomorrow I’ll provide you with link.
quote:
They would have to overfly Canada, where they would be detected by US NORAD stations and intercepted - even if they successfully bombed any US target, they would be ravaged by US air superiority fighters. If we really felt like it, we could use the anywhere between 4-8 experimental F-22A Raptor stealth fighters we have in our arsenal. Or you could fly across the Atlantic, where you would still be detected and intercepted by US fighters. |
Sure we will go through Atlantic. Under ocean we will detected by detected by whom? Intercepted by whom? Do you know on which attitudes those planes fly and at which speeds?
quote:
Most likely, if we attempt a massive invasion, which is why I don't support such a move. I support limited ground insertions in Kamchatka using Marines, light infantry, and airborne forces, in order to take out the submarine base at Petropavlovsk and secure Alaska from possible attack. Good luck reinforcing Kamchatka, |
Good luck capturing Kamchatka. You’ll need it, really big luck.
quote:
by the way, with anything significant, considering the fact that it is 6000 miles away from European Russia, and the only large transportation asset is the Trans-Siberian railroad, which consists of basically a double track. If you want to play the buildup game, the US will win, if for no other reason than logistics. |
In 1945 through this railroad 2 million army with tanks artillery trucks etc, etc, was moved within less then two month from Europe to borders of Japan. It was more then 50 ears ago when we used steam trains, when there was no modern signalization, modern infrastructure, when “Baikalo Amurskaya Magistral” wasn’t constructed. I don’t see any troubles today to do what we done 50 years ago. In any case Railroad transport much faster and much more efficient then Naval transportation.
quote:
One more point, regarding your air force. After operations against Chechnya, your fighters and tactical aircraft were almost out of spare parts, and the stockpiles still have not been rebuilt. |
And when your majesty last time inspected our Air forces? What could you know about our AF?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph1944
Young man and this is not a slam at a young person, but we could very well drop several thousand troops in Russia real easy. And if we secured an airfield look out here we come. Slave until you do some time with American forces don't underestimate them, you might be supprise. |
My father was a career soldier. He spent 2 tours in Vietnam (hes the kinda guy who wished he would of served more - after 2 tours he had 8000 he had racked up in the bank, and thats a lot of money back then) while in the 101st Airborne division. He fought in greneda when he was a Ranger, he was at Panama when they deposed that General Nueriega(sp?) but didnt fight, he was in the gulf war, and then he last served in Somalia. I have a major interest in the US armed forces, I will soon be apart of it, and I know exactly what their capable of. But even a legion of the US' best troops would be slaugtered if just paradroped into Russia. They would be outmanned 10-1 (russia can pump out conscripts like a mother) plus face heavy armor and enemy airsupport. I am sorry to say, that without forward bases for close air support, nor bases for artillery support, nor our supperior armor, US infantry would have little chance against Russia. Dont get me wrong, they would give them hell, and have probably something like a 8-1 kill/death ratio making it a pyhric victory for the Russians, but a victory none the less. The Russians have a long history of such victories, but to them, a victory is a victory...
Kman
EDIT: dont forget, Russia may be decrepit since the fall of the USSR, but it still has a modern military and a real professional one too, not one of these guerilla VC, or freedom fighters, or Iraqi conscripts, they are well trained soldiers that are decently equipped too.
Last edited by Kramerman on 07-08-2002 at 00:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
And those several thousands we’ll meet with our several hundreds of thousands (if not a million of course) And we’ll do it much quicker then you are.
I don’t know to whom you are addressing this “Slave”; there are no slavery or slaves in Russia only Slavs and Slavic brotherhood.
But actually you already were in Siberia. About 100 years ago, write after October revolution. You were beaten.
And I don’t underestimate American military. It is David who believe in “general shitness of Russian army”, not only current Russian army, but in “general shitness” of Russian army through history. |
Sorry for the name mixup. The second part of the message was for you (Serb). The first part was for the other young man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
My father was a career soldier. He spent 2 tours in Vietnam (hes the kinda guy who wished he would of served more - after 2 tours he had 8000 he had racked up in the bank, and thats a lot of money back then) while in the 101st Airborne division. He fought in greneda when he was a Ranger, he was at Panama when they deposed that General Nueriega(sp?) but didnt fight, he was in the gulf war, and then he last served in Somalia. I have a major interest in the US armed forces, I will soon be apart of it, and I know exactly what their capable of. But even a legion of the US' best troops would be slaugtered if just paradroped into Russia. They would be outmanned 10-1 (russia can pump out conscripts like a mother) plus face heavy armor and enemy airsupport. I am sorry to say, that without forward bases for close air support, nor bases for artillery support, nor our supperior armor, US infantry would have little chance against Russia. Dont get me wrong, they would give them hell, and have probably something like a 8-1 kill/death ratio making it a pyhric victory for the Russians, but a victory none the less. The Russians have a long history of such victories, but to them, a victory is a victory...
EDIT: dont forget, Russia may be decrepit since the fall of the USSR, but it still has a modern military and a real professional one too, not one of these guerilla VC, or freedom fighters, or Iraqi conscripts, they are well trained soldiers that are decently equipped too. |
If we drop them in Europe Russia I agree, however if we dropped them in Kamchatka or in Sakhalin and took an airfield, we then could resupply them very quickly. Both the C-5 and C-17 can haul an M-1. C-141, C-130 and contract airlines can haul everything else.
I was Navy and was discharge some 60 days before My ship when to Nam. Some of my old buddies that were due to be discharge some 30 days after me were extended to go to Nam. I then went to work for the Navy and retired in Nov. 95 with 33y 2m 24d. I was 51 at retirement. They close the base March 96. They gave some money to go earlier.
Last edited by on 07-08-2002 at 02:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
I concur with Kramerman. You can't just air drop some troops into hostile territory and hope to win the day. If you do so, then either they serve as part of a large scale invasion, or there are locals who sympathetical to us.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2002 12:37
|