 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
Yeah, now I remember. It was a very truthful story.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Not if the Kirov got within missile range, no. However, seeing as how the two ships have nearly identical speeds (Hazegray lists the Kirov class with a max speed of 32 knots, and the Nimitz class with a max speed of 30+ knots), it would be very tough for the Kirov to close the gap, especially since the US would likely have better intel.
Now, let's look at the range. The primary anti-ship weapon of the Kirov class is the SS-N-19 Shipwreck. This missile has a maximum range of 625 km.
The main attack aircraft of the USN is the F/A-18, which has a maximum combat radius of a bit over 600 km. However, this range can be considerably extended by employing tanker aircraft, and the anti-ship missiles used by the Hornet don't have to be launched from right next to the enemy warship, either. Thus, the main strike weapon of the Nimitz considerably outranges the main strike weapon of the Kirov.
Further, the air wing of the Nimitz includes various other aircraft, including ELINT, AWACS, etc., whereas the Kirov class carries no aircraft at all. This means that even taking satellite coverage out of consideration, the USN will be able to maintain a considerable intel advantage over the Kirov - the Kirov can't effectively close the gap, and the Nimitz can maneuver and attack at will. The Kirov is, in effect, "fighting blind", at least compared to the Nimitz (obviously it can see the aircraft within a certain range).
Now, the debate would get into whether the air defenses of the Kirov could defeat an entire carrier air wing. And making that claim is pretty ludicrous, in my opinion. But you can't say that the Kirov could sink a Nimitz, because the Kirov can't even FIND the Nimitz, and even if it did, it couldn't close the distance enough to launch missiles.
Seeing as how the air wing can get to the Kirov, and the Kirov can't get within range to launch missiles at the Nimitz, I'll take my chances on board the carrier.
|
David, we already had this debate long time ago and I guess we'll say nothing new to each other. So there is no point to continue.
quote:
So, then, it isn't deployable, is it? |
Soon it will be.
quote:
This is irrelevant, because the US isn't stupid enough to risk ANY ships close in to the coast. A US blockade wouldn't hurt Russia that much, so why do it? We don't have enough ships for an effective one, anyway. But if the US wanted to attack the Russian coast at any given point, it wouldn't be tough - just mass 4-5 carriers along with a few attack subs. Start things off with standoff missiles launched from B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s, then surface the subs and launch missiles, then send in 5 carrier air wings to clean up. Hell, the US could even land a Marine Amphibious Unit if we really wanted to. |
I guess 'Red storm rising' is your favorite book.
quote:
I thought we were throwing out nukes? And in any case, I don't care what your doctrine says, you aren't going to start a nuclear war unless someone else starts one first, or maybe you're about to be conquered. |
In case of conventional invasion which will be a threat to our soverignety, we will use weapons of mass destruction. It's official doctrine.
quote:
Oh, sure, you're absolutely right that the US began to seriously improve anti-missile defenses, but this doesn't mean that overall US naval doctrine was changed - that is, we never moved away from the idea of projecting power with large aircraft carriers. |
I never said that you abandoned this 'power projection idea'
quote:
These boats were built for US coastal waters, not blue water offensive operations. The Pegasus is today used for drug interdiction. This has nothing to do with US naval doctrine, at least not significantly - you don't see these things deploying with CVBGs, after all. |
Again, I never said that those boats were build for CVBGs. I said that before Eilat's death US didn't build such boats, but after Eilat was destroyed US started to build such boats.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
Yes, and "soon" the US will have hordes of F-22s, JSFs, the CVNX, new Strike Destroyers, Landwarrior, etc., etc., etc.
quote:
I guess 'Red storm rising' is your favorite book. |
Irrelevant, but it is entertaining.
quote:
In case of conventional invasion which will be a threat to our soverignety, we will use weapons of mass destruction. It's official doctrine. |
It was also NATO doctrine to contain a Soviet bridgehead with nuclear weapons in the event of an invasion of West Germany, but somehow I doubt that would have happened.
quote:
I said that before Eilat's death US didn't build such boats, but after Eilat was destroyed US started to build such boats. |
That's fine, but we don't use them in our naval operations, and AFAIK, never have. They aren't blue water warships, and the USN is very much a blue water force.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, and "soon" the US will have hordes of F-22s, JSFs, the CVNX, new Strike Destroyers, Landwarrior, etc., etc., etc. |
You forget to mention Doom Star.
Seriously speaking, I guess that repair is much easier proccess than building from scratch.
quote:
Irrelevant, but it is entertaining. |
It's full of crap actually. A typical fairy tale.
quote:
That's fine, but we don't use them in our naval operations, and AFAIK, never have. They aren't blue water warships, and the USN is very much a blue water force. |
Fine, it still doesn't change the fact that you use them in your navy and the fact that you started to build them only after Soviets demonstrated their deadly effectivnes. That's the only point I make.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
Thank you very much for your valuable contribution. (insert sarcastic smile here)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-07-2003 10:32
|