Modern wars

[Malcador]

Come now oby, that one Russian ship would probably get wasted by the carrier group. Either it's strike craft or it's escorts.

[kgambit]

The Georgian Fleet?  WTF is oby smoking?

 

The Georgian Fleet consisted of 19 ships headlined by the Dioskuria which was a glorified La Combattante II, along with the Tblisi project 206MR missile boat.  Despite having the capability of launching anti-ship missiles, prior to the 2008 conflict it had no such missiles.  Both ships now lie at the bottom of Poti Harbor. 

 

A single Russian warship against a US fleet?  ROTFLMAO  Now THAT is funny.

 

Did this thread somehow morph info funny internet stuff because damn, oby is outdoing himself. 

Edited November 22, 2013 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

Eh, I dunno. How stuff works practically rather than theoretically is always a question- while a bit old you do have things like the Stark, the British at the Falklands, the Vincennes managing to misidentify and shoot down a commercial airliner and the like. It's one of those situations where you have people saying that their multi billion dollar systems are great and wonderful, but they would say that.

 

(I still remember the war games in which our 1950s era Skyhawks 'sank' most of the Australian fleet)

[Agiel]

KAL Flight 007, just saying.

 

As for the Kirov vs a single Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruiser, that's a mere 20 Shipwreck missiles against a Kitano Circus of 122 Standard Missiles. And that is if they manage to bypass at least twelve F/A-18E/F Superhornets armed with as many as twelve AIM-120B/C AMRAAMs, which outclasses any air-launched weapon in service with the RuAF.

[obyknven]

Come now oby, that one Russian ship would probably get wasted by the carrier group. Either it's strike craft or it's escorts.

This ship designed especially as killer of  carriers. First hypersonic missile salvo just covered entire carrier group. Intercept of hypersonic targets it's very difficult task (as we see above for US navy even intercept of sub-sonic targets is very difficult task). As we see in Syria, even small amount of modern Russian anti-ship missiles increased risks for US too much and huge Nato war machine is stopped.

http://youtu.be/m5hhvQIkKgg

 

Comparing of US Guided Missile Cruiser's  armed by subsonic missiles and Russian's ships armed  by hypersonic missiles is not correct. Russian design own unique classes of ship and traditionally they are better armed than same size US navy ships.

[Agiel]

Design requirements for fleet-defense missiles dating back to the 70s included the ability to intercept supersonic missiles at speeds ~Mach 3.5. In fact the F-14 and its AIM-54 Phoenix missile as well as the new AIM-120D AMRAAM were purpose-built for this role. What matters for these missiles aren't speed, but sensors and G-limits that allow them to make the corrections needed to intercept supersonic missiles. Believe it or not, missiles, provided they have a large enough radar cross section, are easier to intercept than an aircraft since they travel in a predictable course and present an uncomplicated interception solution. SM-3 has already been demonstrated to be able to hit a ballistic missile target, which is considerably more difficult to intercept than a sea-skimmer, and you need only ask the crews of the Yamato and the Bismarck how building even Battlecruiser-sized surface ships such as the Kirov as your primary seaborne AShW platform works out in the age of air power.

 

Against a Russian SAG, a typical USN "Gorilla package" would consist of EA-18G Growler jammers, F/A-18 SEAD shooters with AGM-88 HARMs, and Hornets equipped with AGM-84D Harpoons. When the HARMs are in the air, the Russians have two options, both of them terrible:

 

a.) Turn off their radars, at which point they are now completely vulnerable to the Harpoons which will send them to the briny deep.

 

b.) Leave their radars on to try and intercept the Harpoons, then their radars get busted and the ships are vulnerable to follow-on strikes.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Agiel

[ManifestedISO]

A follow-on strike in a single inflatable carrying a lone SEAL armed with a ball-peen hammer would be more than any Russian ship could defend.   

[Mor]

Looks like a pissing a contest...

[obyknven]

Murica remind me France in 1938 year.  US France is strong, we win Cold War WW1. Meanwhile  "migthy" Murican military forces can't into war against even North Korea and Syria, Murican presiden do what Russian president dictated to him, allies send Murica GTFO (Saudi Arabia and Israel begin own play, Germany and Georgia become pro-Russian; India, South Korea and Japan sign military alliance with Russia), only tiny infirm UK and East European Russophobic Butthurtistans stay with US yet.

 

But Muricans don't notice this, they continue repeat mantra "Murica is Stronk".

[Zoraptor]

KAL Flight 007, just saying.

Not even slightly comparable to the Vincennes in anything except the end result. The KAL flight was literally hundreds of km off target and nowhere near a normal flight path plus actively flying over the USSR without permission at the time while IranAir655 was scheduled and behaving exactly as expected yet somehow even with the infallible AEGIS it was misidentified as an F14 (!) diving quick (!) rather than an Airbus climbing slowly. The soviet technology actually performed near perfectly in the KAL incident, can't say the same for the Vincennes'.

 

Meh, people never want to admit their multi billion dollar stuff can be taken out by anything costing a few thousand, and they never have. Same with tanks, lots of stuff about how they're practically indestructible with their DU ceramic reactive armour and lists of impressive numbers, then some joker sticks a couple of hundred dollar artillery shells and a detonator under the tarmac...

[Agiel]

For both scenarios technology wasn't the issue, it was human fallibility. Issues with the Soviet Ground Control Intercept had sent their aircraft on a wild goose chase, expending their fuel before they could visually identify the civilian airliner. Poor communication with air assets and GCI had also, as previously stated, allowed a West German student pilot to not only penetrate Soviet air space, but also land in Red Square a stone's throw away from Lenin's tomb.

 

And you're putting words in my mouth if you're implying that I ever said something like an Abrams was indestructible even out of its element. 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Agiel

[Walsingham]

 

Comparing of US Guided Missile Cruiser's  armed by subsonic missiles and Russian's ships armed  by hypersonic missiles is not correct. Russian design own unique classes of ship and traditionally they are better armed than same size US navy ships.

 

 

 

Someone's got hold of an old issue of Jane's...

 

Soviet era shipping was designed to let loose as much petal metal as possible. They therefore crammed as much kit as possible into their ships.  The consequence was that it was practically impossible to service at sea, and the seakeeping behaviour of the ships meant significant strain on the crews. This in turn meant ships could not stay at sea for significant periods without impacting operational readiness. It was believed that this unwillingness to stay at sea had a detrimental effect on deeper readinesss through poor training standards.

 

Inference: first order win equals second and third order fail.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Walsingham

[Gorgon]

Is it possible your broken English is getting worse. If you took 5 minutes to get your ducks in a row at least everyone wold be able to work out what you were saying.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93verb%E2%80%93object

[Walsingham]

Don't try to alter the grammar, for God's sake.

 

Or read like racist Yoda will obyknven.

[Zoraptor]

For both scenarios technology wasn't the issue, it was human fallibility. Issues with the Soviet Ground Control Intercept had sent their aircraft on a wild goose chase, expending their fuel before they could visually identify the civilian airliner. Poor communication with air assets and GCI had also, as previously stated, allowed a West German student pilot to not only penetrate Soviet air space, but also land in Red Square a stone's throw away from Lenin's tomb.

 

Nah bro, that's rubbish. The primary problem with the KAL flight was a problem with that flight, ie it was a huge distance off course, any soviet problems were purely secondary. If it hadn't been off course nothing would have or could have happened. In contrast, the IranAir flight did literally nothing wrong, the primary cause was that it was identified as an F14 because the AEGIS software was designed poorly and allowed one aircraft to be highlighted while a different one was actually locked without being obvious about it, plus it could not properly identify and tag civilian id squawks- and that is a fundamental flaw in the system, not just operator error, and an accident waiting to happen. In a combat situation or if the situations were reversed and it was an F14 in the air and an Airbus on the runway then that would be a potentially fatal situation for the Vincennes.

 

You're not going to find me arguing that the Russian/ Soviet military is a paragon of competence, just that the western ones aren't anywhere near as good as their press makes them out to be.

 

And you're putting words in my mouth if you're implying that I ever said something like an Abrams was indestructible even out of its element.

Everyone knows, now, that an Abrams isn't indestructible but I've seen plenty claim it was, prior to 2003. Same with the Merk's that Hezbollah was popping in front of the world's media in 2006, plenty said they were invulnerable in 2005. They weren't, and I see no reason to presume that any putative 'invulnerability' of warships is different.

[Agiel]

 

You're not going to find me arguing that the Russian/ Soviet military is a paragon of competence, just that the western ones aren't anywhere near as good as their press makes them out to be.

 

 

Neither do I with western military stuff (the worst thing to ever hamper the US military was Curtis LeMay's influence which caused the Air Force to focus on strategic bombing rather than tactical air power that was practical for conventional forces). I don't go looking for trouble armed with all my knowledge, but if oby comes here with info from one of those Slavic brotherhood websites and gives me a reason to cut him down for size... well... I can't help myself

[Malcador]

 

Come now oby, that one Russian ship would probably get wasted by the carrier group. Either it's strike craft or it's escorts.

This ship designed especially as killer of  carriers. First hypersonic missile salvo just covered entire carrier group. Intercept of hypersonic targets it's very difficult task (as we see above for US navy even intercept of sub-sonic targets is very difficult task). As we see in Syria, even small amount of modern Russian anti-ship missiles increased risks for US too much and huge Nato war machine is stopped.

http://youtu.be/m5hhvQIkKgg

 

Comparing of US Guided Missile Cruiser's  armed by subsonic missiles and Russian's ships armed  by hypersonic missiles is not correct. Russian design own unique classes of ship and traditionally they are better armed than same size US navy ships.

 

 

Yah, but the point is that super cruiser is just one ship, I don't imagine it has the air defense needed to repel a carrier wing and other surface vessels in a fight.  Subsonic missiles can still blow the hell out of the Russian boat, after all, even if it does take the carrier with it.

 

For some reason I'm recalling some stat about carriers being built to take 8 cruise missiles at least, but that seems like some mil-porn stat.

[obyknven]

Yah, but the point is that super cruiser is just one ship, I don't imagine it has the air defense needed to repel a carrier wing and other surface vessels in a fight.  Subsonic missiles can still blow the hell out of the Russian boat, after all, even if it does take the carrier with it.

 

For some reason I'm recalling some stat about carriers being built to take 8 cruise missiles at least, but that seems like some mil-porn stat.

 

This class of ships especially designed for autonomous (no other ships needed) fight against navy aviation, he have just huge amount of SAM defense  from long-ranged to short-ranged and can attack multiple aerial targets.  Also his anti-ship missiles have almost same range (or maybe even better - real info secreted and weaponry mentioned in open sources is disinformation) as combat radius of Naval aviation. At least Russians use this ship alone for riding of oceans without any support and must be serious reasons for this "careless" behavior.  

[Mor]

You're not going to find me arguing that the Russian/ Soviet military is a paragon of competence, just that the western ones aren't anywhere near as good as their press makes them out to be.

Lets be honest, Western press is nothing compared to Russian press in this regard.

[HoonDing]

Murica remind me France in 1938 year.  US France is strong, we win Cold War WW1. Meanwhile  "migthy" Murican military forces can't into war against even North Korea and Syria, Murican presiden do what Russian president dictated to him, allies send Murica GTFO (Saudi Arabia and Israel begin own play, Germany and Georgia become pro-Russian; India, South Korea and Japan sign military alliance with Russia), only tiny infirm UK and East European Russophobic Butthurtistans stay with US yet.

 

But Muricans don't notice this, they continue repeat mantra "Murica is Stronk".

At times like this, I really do miss lordofflies.

[Walsingham]

If - as I think is very unlikely - obyknven and LoF are two different people then I for one am actually happier with oby. At least oby is transparently wrong.

[obyknven]

Routine check in Russia

http://youtu.be/iCIy4hri1Ig

vs

US patrol in war zone

http://youtu.be/ide8UTxYhEg

Why Nato soldiers acts so unsafe and carelessly?

 

Also new pic of secret Russian APCs. This next generation of vehicles are extremely roboticized and  can act's unmanned as drones.

 

[Agiel]

 Also new pic of secret Russian APCs. This next generation of vehicles are extremely roboticized and  can act's unmanned as drones.

 

Greeeaat... that first ED-209 scene from Robocop waiting to happen then:

 

http://youtu.be/ubEJAsywG4Y?t=54s

[Walsingham]

I hope to Buddha that oby isn't the standard of rationality for all troll-type youngsters. Two youtube videos constituting a line of argument.

[Agiel]

I hope to Buddha that oby isn't the standard of rationality for all troll-type youngsters. Two youtube videos constituting a line of argument.

 

That line of reasoning seems to imply there's a degree of trolling that's intellectually acceptable