Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia-Venezuela naval exercises begin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
    a Kirov was a good match for an early Ticonderoga.. unfortunatley for Russia, we've decomissioned all 5 of them and sunk atleast one of them in an exercise.. the Kirov class is no match for our newer Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burkes in capability.. all it has is more range since it's nuclear powered..
    I would completelly disagree with that. One on one i dont see any surface ship in the US Navy being able to go a Kirov and survive. The air defence on it is incredible, almost a hundred S-300 series SAMs and 400 shorter ranged missiles. This ship was designed to absorb airstrikes and unleash a barrage of long range nuclear tipped anti shipping missiles in return. The problem with them is the Russians can at a pinch put 2 out with 1 carrier in any kind of surface action group. A powerful group, but only 1 group.
    The best part of repentance is the sin

    Comment


    • #17
      Do they have the ability to field 2 at a time?
      It is time to shut up and color

      Comment


      • #18
        Technically
        The best part of repentance is the sin

        Comment


        • #19
          I hard that “Peter the Great” (Kirov Class ) are design as a Air Craft carrier Killer can this ship take on US Air Craft carries

          Comment


          • #20
            one mean lean fighting machine
            Can the last person to leave the UK please turn out the lights
            cheers Jeff

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TheDesertFox View Post
              Do they have the ability to field 2 at a time?
              IMO Rather diffacult bordering on no. The ships conditions were not that great even prior to PTG heading to sea.;)
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by chakos View Post
                I would completelly disagree with that. One on one i dont see any surface ship in the US Navy being able to go a Kirov and survive. The air defence on it is incredible, almost a hundred S-300 series SAMs and 400 shorter ranged missiles. This ship was designed to absorb airstrikes and unleash a barrage of long range nuclear tipped anti shipping missiles in return. The problem with them is the Russians can at a pinch put 2 out with 1 carrier in any kind of surface action group. A powerful group, but only 1 group.
                The air defence capability of the current Tico's are several times magnitude than the S-300 system on the Kirov. Twenty Shipwreck missiles is not enough critical mass to saturate the air defence capabilities of a baseline 7 Aegis system.

                On the other hand, the Tico can deliver, if properly outfitted for a 1v1 sea battle, a saturation level missile strike. Say fitting 61 of its VLS with harpoons (leaving 61 VLS for Standards and ESSM) and launching them in a way that they arrive at the Kirov at the same time. It S-300 can't even come close to defending a saturation level attack as an Aegis ship.

                The Kirov is NOT designed to absorb anything. It is a throw back of the Soviet doctrine of the "Battle of First Salvo" -which is throw everything you got at the USN in a preemtive strike and hope to damage enough it its capabilities because the Russian Fleet will not survive the retaliation.

                Lastly, no navy on earth commissions ship on the basis on how it compares in a 1 v 1 battle. So all this is moot. In a more likely scenario, the Kirov will be destroyed before its weapon system even fires in anger by a JDAM dropped by a B-2 on its large magazine spaces creating the largest explosion at sea since the Yamato went down in 1945.

                I hard that “Peter the Great” (Kirov Class ) are design as a Air Craft carrier Killer can this ship take on US Air Craft carries
                The Kirov is a weapons platform built to fire the Shipwreck missile. So yes, it is designed as a carrier killer, but a bad one at that. The Russian navy has a more capable and survivable weapon system that can deliver the same weapon, the OSCAR II SSGNs.
                Last edited by IDonT; 01 Oct 08,, 21:06.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Harpoons cant be vertically launched. Thats why ships have a VLS system yet they still have a quad pack of harpoons mounted on the back.

                  The S300 (especially the later versions) is considered the worlds most effective SAM. It would definatelly have the ability to shoot down a salvo of 8 harpoons.

                  Why is it that when the rest of the world sees the effectiveness of the S300 series of SAMS we get this fringe crowd of Americans who believe that its only good unless facing American systems. In the world of anti shipping missiles the Harpoon is considered quite average. Its a weapon that destroyers and frigates use to destroy other destroyers and frigates. Against high end air defence systems it doesnt have the ability to penetrate effectivelly. For that you need the Russian supersonic anti shipping missiles that where designed from the outset to defeat AEGIS.

                  A subsonic sea skimming anti shipping missile is not designed for that kind of work. The newer version of the Harpoon is actually more designed for littoral warefare than open water work. I see the fact that the US does not deply a decent large ship killing ASM as a sign of arrogance as it currently doesnt have that many potential enemy large ships to have to worry about.
                  The best part of repentance is the sin

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by chakos View Post
                    Harpoons cant be vertically launched. Thats why ships have a VLS system yet they still have a quad pack of harpoons mounted on the back.
                    Block III can be launched from Mk-41

                    The S300 (especially the later versions) is considered the worlds most effective SAM. It would definatelly have the ability to shoot down a salvo of 8 harpoons.
                    So what has it shot down? Is it the most "In theory" fanboy spec sheet best in the world or has it demonstrated this capability?

                    And why do you think that harpoons would be the only thing launched in aht Antiship mode? SM-2ER makes a pretty good "Radar wrecker"

                    And TacTom has a moving target capability (antiship)

                    Why is it that when the rest of the world sees the effectiveness of the S300 series of SAMS we get this fringe crowd of Americans who believe that its only good unless facing American systems.
                    Because we have seen the actual operation of Russian equipment that was suppose to be the latest and greatest but didn't live up to the hype.

                    As the motto of one of our states says "Show me".


                    For that you need the Russian supersonic anti shipping missiles that where designed from the outset to defeat AEGIS.
                    And cannot do it. They were kind enough to sell us a few so that we could upgrade our defense systems. The Russians, and Chinese, like money.

                    The newer version of the Harpoon is actually more designed for littoral warefare than open water work.
                    The US did not buy the Block II.

                    I see the fact that the US does not deply a decent large ship killing ASM as a sign of arrogance as it currently doesnt have that many potential enemy large ships to have to worry about.
                    Thats like saying I'm arrogant because I havn't bought an elephant gun but I should, even though there are zero wild elephants in my country. And I own a couple of howitzers.

                    I can count "Enemy" large ships on one hand. We fight as a system, so large AShM are not needed. Russia has big AShMs. And 2 large ships to shoot them. We have 10 Nimitz class carriers.
                    Last edited by Gun Grape; 02 Oct 08,, 02:46.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      What's the range of Harpoons and Kirov's missiles?
                      Also, i've heard what SAMs are not the only way to defend a ship. What about anti-missile cannons? (Dont know their names, sorry.)
                      Winter is coming.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Why is it that when the rest of the world sees the effectiveness of the S300 series of SAMS we get this fringe crowd of Americans who believe that its only good unless facing American systems.
                        The rest of the world already knows the cpabilities of the S-300 sam. Several members of NATO have them and the US has throughly analyzed their strength and weaknesses.

                        One more thing, the S-300 is a great anti-aircraft missile. I doubt very much its capabilities of shooting a sea skimmer.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by chakos View Post
                          Harpoons cant be vertically launched. Thats why ships have a VLS system yet they still have a quad pack of harpoons mounted on the back.
                          Because you can't put SM2 in a quad pack canister launchers.

                          Originally posted by chakos View Post
                          The S300 (especially the later versions) is considered the worlds most effective SAM. It would definatelly have the ability to shoot down a salvo of 8 harpoons.
                          Most effective? What combat record does it have? Was it employed in the recent Russia-Georgia conflict? What did it shoot down?

                          Originally posted by chakos View Post
                          Why is it that when the rest of the world sees the effectiveness of the S300 series of SAMS we get this fringe crowd of Americans who believe that its only good unless facing American systems.
                          Because our systems are designed to defeat them.

                          Originally posted by chakos View Post
                          In the world of anti shipping missiles the Harpoon is considered quite average. Its a weapon that destroyers and frigates use to destroy other destroyers and frigates. Against high end air defence systems it doesnt have the ability to penetrate effectivelly.
                          And how many "high end" systems sit on destroyers and frigates?

                          Originally posted by chakos View Post
                          For that you need the Russian supersonic anti shipping missiles that where designed from the outset to defeat AEGIS.
                          AEGIS was designed to defeat saturation attacks by a combination of missiles and planes. That's what the Russians are trying to throw at us right now.

                          Originally posted by chakos View Post
                          A subsonic sea skimming anti shipping missile is not designed for that kind of work. The newer version of the Harpoon is actually more designed for littoral warefare than open water work. I see the fact that the US does not deply a decent large ship killing ASM as a sign of arrogance as it currently doesnt have that many potential enemy large ships to have to worry about.
                          Why should we deploy large ship killing missiles? What large ships are we trying to kill? Can we just bomb it to death with JSOW?

                          Think about this one for a second. How close can you get to a US carrier group before you encounter resistance? How close can you get to any other naval task force in the world before encountering resistance?
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                            So what has it shot down? Is it the most "In theory" fanboy spec sheet best in the world or has it demonstrated this capability?.
                            Yet the Russians seem to be going for it big time.. oh and also, whens the last time a Harpoon was used in anger, or a Standard for that matter. Unless you know a lot that i dont then we are all going on spec sheets here. You cant compare Russian monkey model tanks manned by monkey model soldiers and extrapulate that out to mean that all Russian hardware underperforms.

                            Because we have seen the actual operation of Russian equipment that was suppose to be the latest and greatest but didn't live up to the hype.
                            See above
                            And cannot do it. They were kind enough to sell us a few so that we could upgrade our defense systems. The Russians, and Chinese, like money.
                            And theres nothing stopping them upgrading their offensive systems just the same.


                            Thats like saying I'm arrogant because I havn't bought an elephant gun but I should, even though there are zero wild elephants in my country. And I own a couple of howitzers.
                            Large missiles can also sink small ships, i just believe when there are countries like China and Russia pumping large amounts of money into their militaries you shouldnt be so preocupied with the whole WOT and making everything networkcentric and spend some time money and research introducing more traditional warfighting tools.

                            How much longer do you expect the world to remain Unipolar?

                            I can count "Enemy" large ships on one hand. We fight as a system, so large AShM are not needed. Russia has big AShMs. And 2 large ships to shoot them. We have 10 Nimitz class carriers
                            The Kirovs, the Slavas, the Sovromenny's the Oscars. All carry large supersonic anti shipping missiles
                            The best part of repentance is the sin

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                              IMO Rather diffacult bordering on no. The ships conditions were not that great even prior to PTG heading to sea.;)
                              Have you look inside the vessel, how you know about the Ship condition

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by IDonT View Post
                                Using the same logic, a US cruiser can theoretically carry 488 missiles. (4 ESSM per VLS tube).
                                What US cruiser that can be

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X