sealordlawrenceI’m just going to ignore everything you said, since you are ignoring the original discussion again, and ask you to come back to the main discussion:
Current Russian Anti-ship inventory:
450+ 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
Personally, it’s the numbers of Backfires and Fencers that’s scary to me.
All of them coming in with a combination of Kh-31 and Kh-22/15 missiles would be pretty nasty.
That much anti-ship inventory would realistically deter any US attack on Russian soil, but in the scenario the OP was asking about, I’d say it would be plenty to destroy a large if not complete portion of US CVBGs.
This would realistically come under the cover of hundreds of Flankers and Foxhounds, land SAM batteries, and the whole works.
So still refusing to admit the fact that you are completely in the wrong and trying to get round the fact by suddenly changing your mind what you want to talk about, fantasy fleets, and your continuing completely unproven fantasy weapon the anti-shipping Kh-55 for which you have provided absolutely nothing.:rolleyes:
As for using Tu-160’s in the anti-ship role, well yeah sending strategic aviations most capable but most numerically limited bomber to within 150km of the most well defended surface fleet in history is a great idea.:rolleyes:
Yet again you forget context, how useful do you think a land based air defence system is going to be once the fantasy fleet is beyond a couple of hundred km from the shore, and incidently the further from the coast the less efficient any air cover is going to get whilst that of the CVBG should remain relatively constant.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceTier 2/C3 seems to be the problem here. I am going to call it the T23 problem becouse the issues seem to be similar, allow me to explain: The T23 in its early concept phase was designed for one very specific role, trawl around with a towed sonar array. However it became known over time that to perfrom this role the ships also needed to be capable of other roles, hence todays very powerful T23. C2 seems the same only even more complicated, first of we do not even have a purely defined role for it, is a true T23 replacement? or something less?, does it need a helo, if so what size? I know that Jonesey is pushing the DDH idea, I am not convinced that is what we are going to see, helo capability is not a massive problem for the RN at the moment and if C2 has a helo then one has to ask what the point is. If C2 is a genuine T23 replacement then as I have said before the difference between it and tier 1 could end up being just a few VLS cells, if that is the case then how about something FREMM like and abandoning the T45 design? Or pushing the boat out going all T45 hull except for the MCM, OPV etc roles?
The Australian experience certainly seems worthy of note.
sealordlawrenceWe shall see what happens in the next month.
See what happens in the next few, the carriers are vulnerable until construction properly starts despite the supposed linguistic meanings of phrases like ‘main gate’. The spending review due in the spring is the one to watch.
sealordlawrenceWorse off? So you’ll pretend like this destroys the entire argument? Yes, this little detail, if not accurate, clearly makes all the Backfires and Blackjacks dissapear. Stop beating around the bush. You are still ignoring the main argument.
This is like me calling your entire argument off because you didnt’ even know about how many Su-34s are to be produced. :rolleyes: <–
Infact, here is also no evidence provided by you, or that I remember about all Tu-95 “Bear G” bombers being completely decommissioned. (Something started in the late 90s AFAIK).
What’s worse off for you, is I recall you mentioning something about the ESSM and how impenetrable it is. How many ships actually have it now? 10?
And is the actual defense in place on US CVBGs capable enough to stop a massive saturation attack from every antiship platform in Russian service?
That’s the matter at hand.
Hahahahahaha, your the one avoiding the point, I never said anything about ESSM being impenetrable so now you are lying as well (you can actually get my view on this in post 2 of this thread)
The point is that you have said the following that has no basis in known fact:
1)That the Kh-101 and Kh-55 have anti-ship capabilities: yet there is not a single shred of evidence to support this, not even the scent of a rumor.
2)That the Kh-65S has entered service: Yet ‘Janes Strategic weapons, (one of the most reliable open source for this subject area) and others say that the weapon has never been deployed and that development has been stopped. Furthermore you have not provided even a fraction of a trace of evidence to support your claim.
3)That the Tu-95’s could carry Kh-22’s: However all the Tu-95K-22 aircraft that support the weapon have been removed from service, your source for this being Pavel Podvigs’ ‘Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces’ page 385.
4)That the Kh-65 is just a tactical modification and therefore ‘nothing complicated’, you have failed to point out that you got that phrase from Global Security and not the link that you have given which says only this,
‘A lightweight shorter ranging derivative weapon, the Kh-65’
The words tactical and modification do not feature at all in the Kopp article. The word derivative is the important one, that is to say that the Kh-65 was derived from the Kh-55A design. If you had properly researched this you realise that the phrase ‘tactical modification’ actually suggests a variant modified for tactical purposes with a larger warhead and a shorter range (to fit in with treaty requirements). There actually seems to be two variants the land attack variant with the usual guidance and the Kh-65S with an active radar seeker for the AShM variant. Again there is absolutely no evidence of any of these having ever entered service or even flight tested. A new fuel tank, new warhead and completely new guidance system is only an airframe and an engine from a wholly new missile, add to that the fact that the missile never seems to have been flight tested and it becomes an even more complex picture. The very fact that the Kh-65SE uses a completely different guidance system to the Kh-55 suggests very strongly that the latter is not capable of anti-shipping missions.
Now that you have been proved wrong, despite having spent numerable posts blindly insisting that your single link says a whole lot of stuff that it actually does not, you suddenly decide that the conversation is irrelevant. What has been shown here is that you are completely devoid of knowledge on this subject but that your personality flaws will lead you to ludicrous extremes to avoid admitting the fact.
On the issue of the Su-34, the 2006 figure given in the latest article posted here was 58 by 2015, if that has been modified to 200 by 2020 then fair enough and I am pleased to hear it. However the opening question to this thread was clearly in the present so discussions about Su-34’s are only barely relevant and Brahmos even less so.
sealordlawrenceWeapons don’t kill people.
People kill people.
Absolutely true.
sealordlawrenceI can’t help you if you are illiterate and can’t read (or are too lazy to read the long link). What I posted is clear enough, and you can’t do a thing about it. 😮
What’s also funny is, it means relatively little to the discussion/point at hand. Even if the Tu-95s weren’t armed with AS-15s, they could all be armed with the latest variants of the AS-4 or AS-15 depending on what the Russians felt is better.. range and larger warhead or more missiles.
The link says nothing about Kh-101 or the Kh-55 having an Anti-ship capability or about the Kh-65 having entered service. Maybe you should try reading it.:rolleyes:
You just make this worse for yourself, none of the Tu-95K-22 aircraft that were equipped to carry the Kh-22 (AS-4) are in service anymore.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI will be.
The MoD says a lot of things. Fact is that Afghanistan is costing a fortune, Gordon Browne lacks the liberal interventionist streak of the carriers architect and the country is facing an economic down turn whilst the government has no spare cash. Add to that the fact that the navies procurement projects are probably the most vulnerable to cutting and it all paints a picture of devastation in spring. The carriers are probably the most survivable navy program but they are a very expensive project that will also cost a lot to maintain. Watch the economy, if it picks up and avoids the predicted turmoil things might not get that bad, otherwise dont count your ships becouse if you do you will only be depressed the next time you do it.
sealordlawrenceExcept that brahmos isnt exactly a buy-sell kind of thing.
And the really impressive thing about Brahmos is the development of the longer ranged Scramjet powered version!:eek:
sealordlawrenceI have just shown you proof/info about the Kh-65/SD from the links above. Take it for what it is.
Your assumptions as just as good as mine about the Kh-101, for which everything including Jane’s is a joke.
You didn’t even know a thing about the Su-34 . . . showing your complete lack of knowledge in anything Russian related.
So unless you have proof that I am completely wrong, go fly a kite.
No you have shown proof that there was a Kh-65 project, you have shown none whatsoever that any Kh-65s ever entered service and not a single link, mention or rumour of a Kh-101 having an anti-ship capability despite the known history of the Kh-65/Kh-SD suggesting that the Kh-101 would require a seperate variant. I have provided you with two sources stating that the Kh-65 program has been ended and you have ignored them both in your vain and pathetic attempt to admit that you are completely ignorant on this subject.:rolleyes: The really hilarious thing is that becouse every single source on this subject fails to support your opinion you reject every single source….:D 😀 😀 ………get real, you are wrong and its time to fess up.:p
I dont what you mean about the Su-34 as that is simply not the case. The fact is that you are completely wrong and you are just trying to cover up the fact by sporadically mentioning other discussions.:rolleyes:
Oh and by the way, America has built a real death star, I have no evidence to support it but you can not disprove it so it is definately true.:rolleyes: :p 😀
sealordlawrenceI see nothing to back up anything you have said. Most of which was your personal opinion about Russian seeker variation on an AS-15/Kh-55 base. Who would you be to trust with this analysis anyway? Russian airforce high ranking officer right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Once the Russians have zeroed in on the position of a CVBG, you could easily you the Kh-101 to target a ship since it is rumored to have TV guidance.
Unless you have some amazing links to the exact details of how the Kh-101 works, straight from a Russian source in the armed forces, your “sources” are as good as any.
Now with that said, when did I ever mention anything about a Brahmos in Russian service? 😮
Hope to god that never happens either, since whatever the Russians sell India is going to be worse than what they give themselves, I am sure – you know? Old Soviet doctrine.. the one that Russia adopted?
Bottom line is, do you have anything to prove the Russians didn’t convert any Kh-55s into Kh-65/SDs for antishipping use?
So you have absolutely no evidence of Kh-101 having an anti-shipping capability despite having been given a sensible explanation why it would not. Present a single source suggesting an Anti-ship capability, otherwise this is just a fantasy system from you.
There is zero evidence of any Kh-65’s or Kh-SD’s having entered service and if you check the specs and development you would find that that the Kh-65 is not just a modified Kh-55 but an entirely new variant.
Quite clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, are utterly unable to conduct any form of research and completely void of any source analysis capability.
Ask the Indians what the Russians were willing to give away post 1992.
sealordlawrenceThere has been nothing meaningful said by you in this thread about Russian anti-ship doctrine whatsoever. :rolleyes:
What is your source on the Kh-65 being dropped and the Kh-555/101 having no anti-ship targetting capability? :rolleyes:
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.112/pub_detail.asp
Read up buddy. 😉
The Kh-65 is just a tactical modification of the Kh-55. Nothing too complex.
Janes Strategic weapons and Pavel Podvigs ‘Russian Strategic Weapons’. All more reliable than a Carlo Kopp article. Learn source analysis.:rolleyes:
All of this stuff is easily available through a very basic google search, the fact that you do not know it and seem to think that the Kh-65 is in service is just laughable.:D :p :rolleyes:
What is your source for the Kh-101 having an AShM capability.:rolleyes: Seeing as the Kh-SD that largely replaced (evolved from) the Kh-65 reportedly uses a guidance system based on that for the Kh-101 and yet the Kh-65S (AShM version) uses an active radar seeker it seems highly unlikely that the Kh-101 has an anti ship capability.
What amuses me the most about you is that you are now fishing around for weapons that are not even in Russian service to show how powerful Russia is, care to tell us how many Brahmos are in Russian service?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceBad news …………… CVF is likely to be delayed 😡 🙁
You have guessed the reason why………….
Money troubles
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8e480bb0-bfc0-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac.html
Wait for the spring defence review (April IIRC)…………..its not going to be pretty.
sealordlawrencethat 58 Su-34 is old figure before Russia found fortune. now they are creating capacity to build 20 per year for 300 by 2020. and Brahmos range is 300KM due to MTCR. Incase of Russia you wont know if u are dealing with 300KM missile or 3000KM missile
Prove it.
sealordlawrenceYou really think Russia is like another Iraq right?
I guess air bases don’t have SAM defenses and the Russian armed forces as a whole won’t be on alert in an attack scenario by US Carrier Groups ??
No Mig-31 patrols, no SAM batteries.. :confused:
The Russians could muster an attack starting with subsonic missiles launched from Tu-95s or Tu-160s, using Kh-65 and Kh-101 cruise missiles, Sierra (and AFAIK Akula) class subs should be able to use their cruise missiles also at this time. As these subsonic missiles approach their targets, unload with the supersonic SS-N-12/19 and Moskits.
I’m sure Su-24s could even use their Kh-31P anti-radar missiles against the ships.
The Tu-160s could also join Backfires in using Kh-15s if deemed necessary.
Smaller Moskit-armed corvettes would also be able to launch massive salvos along with the functioning Kirovs, Slavas, Oscars using higher speed missiles.
Kh-65 has been dropped and will likely never enter service and Kh-101 is a land attack cruise missile.:rolleyes:
Other than that you have just outlined the doctrine that we were all talking about to start with.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceGetting past the essm vs sizzler debate, to deal with the original question (chances of backfires, oscars vs USN CBG), you’d also need to consider the Su-34. A more stealthy platform albeit with lower payload capacity.
The thing is, long ranged AShMs (300km+) automatically put the carriers on the defensive. Irrespective of whether an ESSM type can defend succesfully or not. Let us say for speculation sake, that the ESSM has 80% success rate against something like an Onyx/Sizzler or Moskit. But a saturation attack from multiple directions would mean that chances of survival diminish considerably. Out of 20 total missiles, 4 might get through and mission kill (if not cripple) a capital asset. Ideally, you’d want to be able to totally prevent any such launch. no flanker/backfire ought to be able to reach close to launch range. How effective/large is the safety bubble created by the Super Hornet/Hawkeye combo? will it be able to tackle a bunch of backfires/Su-34s covered by Su-27s or worse, Pakfas? 😮 Ditto with the AsuW assets on the CVBG?
Regards,
USS.
An article was posted in this forum earlier today about the Su-34, 58 by 2015…….Not that scary. 300km is not that impressive, it puts the launch aircraft well within range of the defensive carrier aircraft, Hawkeye and Shornet which were aimed at Backfires carrying 400km+ missiles. Not to mention the Standards of the escorting DDG’s.
Sign In
