dionisYou have yet to actually tell us how many backfires and Kh-22’s are really available and not just what you wet dream about.
Sources claim 150 with 90 in reserve.
What else do you want?
http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=257&linkid=1618
And just how many carriers and bodies is the US willing to sacrifice to invade Russia, wet dreams aside?
dionisSo you still have no actual sources and evidence.:rolleyes:
Neither do you. :rolleyes:
dionisIf you have point to make back it up with evidence, if you can not prove it (which you seem unable to do) shut up.
My evidence is you have no evidence on me claiming something about Bear-Gs being in full active service. Can you get that around your head? Clearly not. Did you graduate out of high school? Just wondering.
Also, do you have anything to prove the Russians can’t get their Kh-55s modded out for anti ship role by using the Kh-65 seekers on short notice? Or that the Kh-41 is an impossiblity. I didn’t think so.
dionisWhos whining?
Here is an excerpt of comments by the the USN CNO Admiral Roughead.:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4143
“ADM. ROUGHEAD: The patrol that the Russians flew came out — this is something that was really quite common in the days of the Soviet Navy — but as you have seen in recent weeks, they have increased the level of flight activity. But they flew out toward Nimitz. We knew they were coming. We saw them coming. We detected them at the appropriate time. We launched out alert aircraft, who escorted the Russian aircraft. There was an overflight of the carrier. And, you know, from my perspective, everything worked exactly as we train to do and as we expect our people and our commanders to perform.
So I think what we are seeing is a Russian military or Russian Navy that is emerging, particularly in the case of the navy desiring to emerge as a global navy. They recently deployed some ships through the Mediterranean and I believe this is all part of that emergence as a global — in the perspective that I have, a global navy.
So that’s how I see it. I did not consider it to be provocative. And again, the way that our forces responded, our commanders responded, the performance of our systems were — it was exactly what we expected. ”
“ADM. ROUGHEAD: The overflight in this case was around 2,000 feet. And going back into, you know, my experience operating against the Soviets as a much younger naval officer, it was not common for us to overfly the ships. But again, I don’t — I didn’t consider this provocative. “
BTW:
The P-3 was Norwegian and the Kunetsov was well within Norways 200 mile “economic exclusion zone” a far different story than Russian aircraft sorties.
Combine this with the earlier irresponsible operations close to the Norewegain offshore oil rigs.
And you can make a good case for Russain irresponsibility toward and intimidation of the Norwegians.
For what purpose?
But of course the typical Russain response is that its always sombodys elses fault for their nonsense.
Russians should “man up” and take responsibility for their words or actions.
But Ive never seen that happen in my 50+ years of life and probably never will.
When will America man up and do the same? Destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs. Destabilized Iraq. The list goes on. Of course, none of that was bad and it wasn’t their fault. Saddam clearly had SS-18s in his palace, and the Japanese were “winning” the war.
dionisThere are enough Backfires in service to make sure supplies are targeted too.
dionisI have quoted you numerable times in the past. I dont need to provide a source, it is your claim so you have to back it up.:rolleyes:
You do the work. You have nothing on me claiming that Tu-95K22 variants were in widespread service.
And to your surprise, I still bet there’s a couple around :rolleyes:
But clearly, according to your unclassified-source book, they were all gone in 2 years.
dionisDont know if the problem was with reading…. more with comprehension…you seemed to be describing the operation of the system pretty much as was just with the modification of continuous feeds – something that wouldnt have been possible without multiple time-spaced satellites on the same orbital path. That being something that would’ve necessitated dozens of satellites across several consecutive orbital paths. Given the type and lifespan of the space vehicle I dont think Legenda was ever intended to be that large in scale!.
A-50 here has been placed in the context of an enabling system to permit the use of various weapons. IIRC the system used by the Tu-142’s analagous to Legenda was called Uspekh now is there confirmation that the A-50 was fitted with Uspekh and could pass targetting data direct to the SSM shooters/missiles?.
Which is emminently sensible…..and a further nail in the coffin of the P-500/700 etc, etc.
One would expect Legenda to be kept operational if these long-range missiles were to be kept on at any kind of operational capability status. Failing that one would expect a sensible organisation to scrap weapons it couldnt use against a target set that had diminished to the point of non-existance to save money to prop the rest of its rusting fleet up!. Thats what one would bloody expect!. Instead what one see’s is the retention of missiles who’s only value seems to be the arousal and excitement of adolescents on internet fora who believe that size and speed actually mean something in 21st Century naval warfare!.
Kh-32 is still aeroballistic, still offers no chance whatsoever of the defending target missing the inbounds on any of their air search systems and is still flying through SM-2’s engagement envelope. Kh-32 is what the Russians had to do once CEC got out….with greater situational awareness and joint targetting the window of exposure to air-defences ramped up to the point where Kh-22 was worse than useless. Kh-32’s higher speed is simply a mesure to try and reduce that vulnerability period back down to where it was pre-CEC. Its not news!.
But Garry you said:“Keeping the big missiles in service means that when carriers become a potential threat then the missiles are in place and the satellites can be launched as needed”. Are you contradicting yourself now?.
Which USN carrier doesnt have a minimal consort of 2 SPY-1/SM-2 ships?.
Here you are talking about Moskit presumably?. What platform did the Soviets have which was going to survive long enough to get into Moskit range of an AEGIS ship and launch?. Especially seeings that the AEGIS ship would have had E-2/L11 coverage and SURCAP from the CV?.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda!. Kh-22 isnt a sea-skimmer like Moskit…neither is P-500, P-700 or P-1000.
Russian MANPADS weren’t useless and had proven very employable, we’d seen that from a couple of NATO shootdowns (1 Sea Harrier FRS1 included). Thats the point about the supersonic antiship missiles I’ve been making all along. The easier something is to deploy and use the more fearsome it is. You think Granit would’ve kept the uSN 500nm off the Soviet coast if it’d come to shooting?.
This is all completely irrelevant. What you are doing is separating a large scenario.
Think of the Russian Navy / Air Force / Naval Aviation and Army coordinating here.
You have tons of various bombers, fighters, ships, subs all coming in to take out a US CVBG or several of them.
You think Sovremennys or Tarantuls will just go in one at a time or what? Come on man. That’s just weak.
The US fleets will face salvos of Kh-22/32s, Kh-15s possibly, Kh-31Ps, P500/700/1000, Moskits, Kh-35s, potentially Kh-101s if the TV guidance can lock onto a ship in terminal phase attack. Not to mention all the of subs using SS-N-16s to drop all sorts of nasty stuff towards the US fleets.
Add all of this onto EW and ECM systems, chaff deployments, etc.
dionisAnd that’s why everybody keeps laughing at you.
The only thing that’s laughable is the fact that 4 people on this forum believe that carriers are invisible to radar.
An AWACS can track a carrier at 400KM out.
That’s pretty close to the shore if you ask me, if it’s even that close.
Now it’s either not doing anything, sitting there and being useless, or it’s deploying aircraft and giving itself away even more than the fact that the Russians would have certain areas where they would find carriers “typically” where they are being useful. How hard is that to understand?
If not, the US CV escorts or separate attack groups would be launching Tomahawks, which is another good way to give your position away.
But no, of course, carriers are invisible, and Russians use wind-up radars and (rusted) spyglasses to look for stuff. :rolleyes:
dionisNo doubt “Dionis” thinks that’s a viable solution. 😉
No, “Sferrin,” they found it with this:
After all, the Russians don’t have computers or the internet. 😉
dionisHow many of these jamming assets are there and what level of sophistication are they, i imagine there pretty poor quality and fairly ancient…
How great are those NATO AEGIS radars? All in questionable condition and run by fat, bloated, Double Whopper w/ Cheese eating Americans who can barely move right? 😮
I mean come on man, how predictable are you? You gotta drop the stereotypes.
It seems everything NATO has works 110% efficiently, and everything the Russians have doesn’t work at all. This has gotten old. Really old.
dionisWrong question. Which is easier to target?
The massive chunks of floating metal (read: cruisers, destroyers, carriers) that are wandering towards the Western (most likely) side of Russia, either through the Mediterranean or North Atlantic.
dionisIt would depend on with what tool your planning on hitting said missile with would it not? And that question you pose is not as simple as you think because while the missile has no countermeasures as soon as its found by a fire control system it can be countered, now a ship has a wide variety of options it can take, course changes, countermeasures, the ability to lob several missiles back at the incoming missile means that if one misses theres a back up, failing that lob a few more up, the anti ship missile has but one option and that is to keep on going at the ship.
You can’t ignore the electronic warfare / jamming platforms operating with the attacking aircraft / sea assets.
dionisI guess the most promising action by USA as owner of CVBGs would be a massive pre-emptive strike on all Tu-95 bases within reach. Different than a CVBG these are only lightly defended, are not moving and actually identifiable with Google Earth.
The massive strike of Soviet forces on CVBG was a scenario more bound to North Atlantic which is kind of “small” in some areas. In the Pacific there is neither a real reason for US carriers to go nor a good chance to find them.
The role of CVBG is also today more offensive than it was in the Cold War. For the big East-West conflict the carriers were overpriced assets. The USA always kept them to police the world.
Western Russia is also far more heavily defended, and if need be I’m sure the Long Range aviation would move Westward from the Pacific airbases if need be, some Navy assets of course would take much longer to travel around but it’s not an impossibility with enough warning.
dionisSo can the antiship missile.
Oh really? What a theory there, might want to bring that up to the US DoD.
I wonder what’s easier to hit, a capital ship at 30 knots or a missile @ supersonic speeds. :rolleyes:
dionisPlease dude, no need for the rude manner,your letting your emotions rule you. I’m not even gonna go there about the Russian press, i suggest use that priceless asset called the internet to help research just how free it is… 😉 I am sceptical of your 6 fold increase in defense spending ‘statistic’ do you have a source for that ‘fact’? Honestly free press in Russia, can i have some of what your smoking cos it sounds damned good! :diablo: What next world class human rights in China i guess… Edit: i now have to speak Russian to read there online news, sheesh so to comment on Russia i need to not only know some Russian people and have been to russia, i also now have to know the language, you guys are tough! lolz
You need to learn to read, and open your eyes to reality. I’m sure you are comfortable on your little rainy island, but things are pretty different if you step off.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=russian+defense+budget+quadrupled&btnG=Google+Search
The defense budget QUADRUPLED, not “increased 6 fold” – read a little more carefully, and there’s 7,570 results for you to look over.
Sign In
