sealordlawrenceThen you have to ask yourself how it differs from C2.
Which then leads you to ask why there should be a C2 at all. How about just destroyers and corvettes, might save on manpower as well, something else the RN is critically short of.
Just a random musing.
sealordlawrencePost a credible one that says it isn’t.
:rolleyes: x2
Not to mention if they have the capacity to do it, how hard is it to when necessary prop a Kh-41 onto an aircraft??
So once again you have no sources.
We have been through this multiple time before, you can not prove that America does not have a Death Star therefore they must have one.
Prove that the air launched Moskit is in service or go away.:p
Oh yeah, according to this source, as of 2002 the Kh-41 had not entered production so unless you can prove that that has changed in the last few years just stop posting.
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/exports/general/expmsl.htm
sealordlawrenceEvery single online source states that the Su-33 is capable of carrying the Moskit.
Does that mean you have to find one attached to every one of them? Has there ever even been a need to fire them? :rolleyes:
I’d probably be even more worried since the Su-27SM is rumored to be able to carry the just as nasty if not nastier Kh-15.
So post one that says that the combination is in service.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThe Su-33 can be equipped to carry the Kh-41 if necessary.
You are suggesting the NEWER Su-27SM can not carry it? Just because you haven’t seen the new Flankers with your own eyes? Or that the Russian military possibly has chosen not to report it to the world?
Or did some Russian high up from the military call you up and tell you something like “Hey buddy, you know, we have the capability to equip our newer Flankers with Kh-41 and Yakhont missiles, but you know, that would be crazy, so we don’t” :rolleyes:
Now you are back in the realm of your fantasy weapons again. Show evidence of air launched Moskits or Yakhonts in Russian service. Given that thus far Brahmos has not been fitted to the Su-30MKI and that we have only ever seen a picture of an Su-33 with a mock-up of a Moskit I think you are going to struggle.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI have been off this thread for a moment and now I cannot believe my eyes. During the Cold War times Russians were said to be able to blow up the entire planet 5 times (or is it just 2-3 times now?), but judging by the reponses here it looks like smashing one US aircraft carrier is still an unreachable task for them. 😉
Weird….
The Russians still can ‘blow up the entire planet’ MAD still applies as far as Russia is concerned (and the US ABM system in its current form is not going to change that) but destroying a CVBG is a different prospect altogether.
sealordlawrence3 Sunburns or 2 Onyx’s can be on Su-27’s and they will get much closer than 300km.
Show us any evidence of Flankers in Russian service equipped with Onyx or Sunburn.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceLads,
Please put down the Milparade or Russian Weapons Catalogue 2006 and understand something. Listing weapons as a fait accompli is meaningless and does nothing but underscore the fact that some of you cant even quantify how much you dont know on this topic.
You have to look at deployable force packages – there may be 145 Backfires and 400+ Fencers but how many are deployable and how many are based at locations within strike radius if a carrier is detected off Murmansk…or off Kamchatka?. What are the current weapons stocks at those locations. Its no use saying that 100 Kh-22Ms would smite a USN battlegroup from the high seas if, the one time you get a lucky passive sonar hit, you only have 40 useable Kh-22’s in the local inventory and the other couple of hundred are on the other side of the country x000 miles away!.
All these factors, plus most critically, the targetting issue that all the proponents of this kind of long-range missile warfare always try to gloss over, weigh far more heavily in the calculation of what effectiveness any given strike will have.
Lastly please stop regurgitating the Su-24 incident as it bears utterly no relation to getting a fix on a USN group under alert conditions. The carrier, during that incident, had had its movements published on the internet, by the US DoD, as was routine at the time. This was hardly therefore the triumph of Russian reconnaissance capability that many fanboys try to make it!.
From memory one of the escorts had held tracks on the two Sukhois 5 minutes before the overflight and, in a shooting situation, they would have been shot in the face with SM-2’s before they even saw the carrier. It wasnt a shooting situation so the overflight was allowed….even though…had interceptors been available the Sukhois would’ve been escorted away.
Excellently put Jonsey.
sealordlawrenceWhat was the maximum number of carriers deployed to combat at one time in the recent history? I haven’t checked but I don’t expect the number to be more than 3.
Anyway, I have already said before that Iranians would probably not get involved into a conventional conflict with US NAVY. Guys with Igla missiles stationed around the most important targets could do a much better job, I think.
Does not mean the USN can not surge if the situation requires it.
sealordlawrenceThey are more boats to help the other subs nonetheless, and the technology on those ships is fine. The 1980s SAMs onboard are capable of intercepting a subsonic Harpoon, and weapons like the SS-N-14/15/16 are plenty capable too. Now throw in the air force, and that’s a LOT OF ordnance to throw around!
More interesting though, is how many ships/subs would the US actually afford to send towards Russia?
And how would you know anything about how little or how much the Russian Navy has gone to sea? Cause like I said, things are getting better and better for the last 8 years, and the Navy isn’t inclined to report every little time the ships go out are they? There have been plenty of public exercises done, some with the US fleets in the Pacific even!
So you cant tell us the readiness of the Russian fleet then.:rolleyes:
The US could actually afford to send as many ships as it needed to engage the Russian navy, ever actually thought about comparing the two or were you too busy inventing fantasy weapons.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrence450+ Su-24s with Kh-17A/P ability
145+(+90 in reserve) Tu-22M3 Backfires with Kh-22/15 (super/hypersonic)
16 Tu-160s with Kh-15s (hypersonic)4-8 Oscar II submarines with SS-N-19 (supersonic) (depending on combined / or split fleets)
2-3 Kirovs (pending status on Lazarev) with supersonic SS-N-19s
1 Kreml/Kuznetsov Class Carrier with SS-N-19s (supersonic)
2-3 Slava Cruisers with SS-N-12s (supersonic)
4-8 Akula Class subs with SS-N-16s
2-3 Sierra II class subs with SS-N-16s and AS-15+ mod capability
18 Kilo class subs (torpedoes + SAM )
11+ Sovremenny Class Destroyers (SS-N-22 supersonic missiles)
11+ Udaloy Class Destroyers SS-N-14 / SS-N-22
1 Neustrashimy Class Frigate (SS-N-16 and SS-N-25) subsonic
~10 Krivak Class Frigates (SS-N-14)
18 Tarantul I/II boats with old school SS-N-2 Styx
28 Tarantul III boats with SS-N-22 (supersonic)
27 “Pauk” boats with SA-N-8 for close range air cover
~25 Grisha class ASuW boats for coastal sub protection
These are the functional ships of the navy, plus or minus a few, no one knows. What I do know, is in the last 8 years, the situation has been getting better. You should watch Russian news sometimes . .. you’ll see how much more active every aspect of the Russian armed forces has been.
Kinda like that Jane crap.
From cancelling the Tu-160s totally, to wanting 20+ within the next decade or 2.
If you wanna be real technical, you could probably say that you could bring another 6 – 8 Victor III class subs out of reserve since their reactor lives expire just around 2005 – 2010, which are a perfect counter to LA class subs.
Because you know, the ESSM is still in short number, and most of those “nasty” US SSNs are Los Angeles / Improved Los Angeles class subs, plus a couple Virginias and Seawolfs, if they dare send those in.
Now you are just repeating yourself, care to tell us the last time those ships were given upgrades or refits, how often they go to sea?:rolleyes:
Improved Los Angeles are better boats than Victor III’s and are available are far greater numbers.
sealordlawrenceactually any known ranges of Russian export weopons. u increase the range for domestic variant.. recently KH-31PMK was offerred with 200KM range was offered for export. I have yet to see any export Su-30MK2/Su-30MKI armed with more than 200KM range weopon. Most article automatically append export description to domesitc variants.
Actually read your own sources, the article says nothing about the Kh-31P having a range of 300+, it states that the upgraded aircraft are capable of striking targets at that range and the Kh-31P has a range of around 100km.
sealordlawrenceBut then again, the Russian fleet has plenty of ASuW and SAM assets too to defend itself. You have to get over this notion of invading countries that can’t defend themselv.es
I imagine the Su-24 can use the larger ranged Kh-31P to engage cruisers/destroyers as well since they’ll be pretty big radar targets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxky4ku__K0&feature=related
As I mentioned earlier, all these assets don’t go out hunting solo.
Everything from FSB copters to TU-160s gets involved.
The Russian navy rarely puts to sea and most of its ships have received no upgrades since the 1980’s, in that period its size has been massively reduced. The capacity of a Sovremmeny or a Udaloy to defend itself is highly questionable. The Russian surface fleet is little short of being a museum- how many Aegis DDG’s has the USN commissioned since 1990?:rolleyes:
Even the 200km ranged Kh-31P is going to make the launch aircraft vulnerable.
sealordlawrenceBoo, hiss, boring!. They want to get the Freestyle back in the air and work up a design for a STOVL CVL….might even get ’em a few export orders.
There have actually been vague rumors/reports about a V/STOL requirement and research for the Pakfa. Whether it is true and if so whether anything will actually come of it is a different matter but interesting anyway.:)
sealordlawrenceBack on point, not bad! 😮
However, what if the Backfires use the latest Kh-22s (440KM range), and what about the rest of the Russian fleet/airforce?
Also, Kh-15 launch range is quoted to be 250KM on some sources, but I think that’s probably bogus.
Also, your lovely Jane’s seems to think that the Kh-32 might be starting production in 2006.
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jswsa034.html <– That would be interesting now wouldn’t it?
Also, don’t forget that there’s the Navy assets + Su-24s which can throw plenty of Kh-17A/Ps towards the carrier group!
So you still can not admit to being wrong………..that is why you ignored the largest part of my last post.
I assume that you mean Kh-31A, you seem to have gotten the NATO and Russian designations confused- yet another example of you being utterly clueless on this subject.
Anyway the Kh-31A would put the launch aircraft well with the range of the missile defences of the Aegis destroyers.
Kh-32 could well be an interesting missile but it is impossible for us to know whether it could penetrate a defended CVBG.
As for the rest of the Russian fleet, well its ability to operate in waters infested with US SSN’s is highly questionable. Not to mention Super Hornets carrying Block III harpoons.
sealordlawrenceHmm…. You started out with 6 carriers, now you are up to 10, LOL.
Who told you they only have 20 tomcats ?
How many are “a few” mig29 ? 7, 13, 60, 150 ?
F4 ?
F5 ?
A-50 ?
6+. Note the +
Iran does not have A-50’s and the rest of the information is available via your old friend google.
Sign In
