dionisWhile the US Navy surface fleet was vulnerable, I don’t think that it follows that the Soviet or Russian Navy would have fared any better. The oceans would be cleared of ships of all sides. SSNs rule the seas. USN SSNs were the best in the world during the Cold War, and I suspect that they still are.
But on the other hand, how survivable are Soviet or Russian bombers on the ground from attacks by FB-111A bombers, or B-2A bombers? Could USN SSNs and P-3C aircraft defeat Russian SSGNs? Perhaps if the surface fleet held back until the threats had been neutralized, the surface navy would remain viable. :confused:
The Los Angeles was on par with the Victor III, and later LA subs were on par with Akula I subs, and the best LA class subs should have been on par with Improved Akulas. The Akula II was claimed to be better than any LA class sub. An Oscar II SSGN should have been able to hold its ground as well. Not to mention SSNs are vulnerable to various ASW platforms. You should check the load outs on Soviet subs. Their missile armaments were extremely impressive (SS-N-15/16).
As mentioned about the bombers on the ground, in case of war the the US would have to penetrate arguably the most layered SAM network around, and then catch them in their bases while they jump airstrips around.
dionisAs I have repeatedly said, the Russians, with their new nuclear strike policy don’t need to repel a USN attack on Russia, or sink any carriers. I’d like to see an F-18 penetrate Russian airdefences to the depth required to reach strategic targets… and a carrier with all its planes shot down might as well be a tug boat. The Russians already went down the path of complete coverage with airspace when the US introduced cruise missiles and looking at the costs it was largely the reason the Soviet Union collapsed. Creating another surveillance system whose only purpose was to track USN carriers is to be honest a huge waste of money for Russia in the late 80s, in the 90s and probably until about the middle of the next decade (2015-2018).
Till then the USN can do what it likes, but any attack by US carriers on Russia will result in ICBMs and other strategic weapons being used… which suggests that against the Russians the US carriers are about as much use as T!Ts on a bull.
Open water recon is generally a useless waste of money by mass satellite if there is no threat, they would be looking closer to their shores in the event of a “war.” I’d say its far from the truth that the RuAF has few air based recon assets, from Tu-95 variants to A-50s to whatever other converted platforms they have.
dionisIn the 1980s, even the US Admirals stated the life expectancy of the average carrier was about 3 days. Success hinged upon the carrier remaining undetected for as long as possible and the Soviets running out of missile carrying bombers before the Americans lost the 6 of 12 aircraft carriers that could put to sea at short notice. Americans were so afraid of Soviet bombers that 688I SSNs were fitted with 16 vertical launch TLAM-D Tomahawks just so they could attack Soviet bomber bases in the hope of killing the bombers while they were parked. Each TLAM-D was capable of scattering BLU-92 bomblets over three airplane parking spots.
This is also the reasons the Russians practice hauling their bombers around to more remote air bases and operating them from there, and constantly keep switching bases. The only way the US would truly get them in the parking lots is a surprise attack during peace time.
dionislol yeah Kitty Hawks steam boilers are gonna explode in a nuclear fireball :diablo: most amusing.
No, that would be the “steam boilers” of the Victor :rolleyes:
dionisAnd the Victor that hit the Kitty Hawk? I suppose they did it on purpose?
Guess those Kitty Hawk boys are happy it didn’t explode in a nuclear fireball 😉
Even better question is how they let the sub right under the carrier? :rolleyes:
dionisThe Patriot missile’s combat history is a lot less pathetic than the S-300’s “combat history”!:rolleyes:
Just because Russia hasn’t had the need to bomb the Middle East? :rolleyes:
dionisDon’t believe everything you read in novels is my advice, but anyways why was the submarine termed ‘invincible’ and how did he get a ‘lock’ on a sub? As for your bit about ‘but Russia is just crap and all their stuff is useless and America is not to blame no matter what the facts… (starsplattered banner now plays loudly).’ ,well the Russians performance of late hasn’t been to impressive now has it regarding undersea operation (i’m looking at you Kursk) and i really don’t know where your emotionally charged comments about America being to blame complete with snarky comment about its flag for some odd unfathomable reason have to fit in with anything here/ confused.
I’m still really puzzled about the whole flight sim part too, you say Russia has them yet you compare them to be as classified as B2 bomber plans or nuke launch codes in terms of how secret they are, so i take it you don’t have any pictures of even the outside of one of these simulators, i’d be rather suprised to find out if they did exist why Russia wouldnt allow anyone to take a photo or two of the outside of it or when its switched off, afterall we can all look up pics of a backfire cockpit yet the sim would be classified? Something dosnt add up there. And the other ‘sim’ dates back to the 60’s? (the one with the airfix plane on a stick,sorry robotic stick) ,well i should think that’d be in museum or scrapped long ago by now.
Clearly American performance has been great. I mean the amount of Japanese surface ships they hit when they are at sea is astounding. Good sonar work.:rolleyes:
dionisStop using insults to cover the fact that you are completelyignorant on this topic.
You stated that the current in service Tu-95’s can fire Kh-22’s……..without providing a source.
You claimed that the Kh-41 was in service…….without providing a source.
You have made the ridiculous statement that flight hours are irrelevant in relation to crew proficiency.
Time and again you have made unfounded and wrong statements and as proved above every time you are shown to be wrong you resort to insults.
I like how you avoided the point at hand. I’m glad we agree, or you are just dumbfounded by the revelation.
dionisHow pathetic, realising that you have been made to look foolish you resort to insults and criticising spelling and grammar. Just reinforces the image of a child that you seem so attached to.
I find it mind boggling that you do not understand the relationship between flight hours and personnel proficiency, it is a commonly accepted fact.
Your general incompetence is brought out by your inability to use English correctly.
There is clearly a relevance/relationship between flight hours and personnel proficiency.
However, one is a way to an end, another is the final result.
In our case, the way is flight hours, and the final result = personnel proficiency.
And specifically in terms of the RuAF, we have the FINAL RESULT, and it’s GOOD according to the source I provided. Therefore flight hours can be considered fairly irrelevant. So the do you understand? Probably not. :rolleyes:
dionisYou have been proved to be a liar, have failed to provide a single source for any of your claims and refuse to admit that your are wrong and continue to skirt the issue in the vain hope that something will come along to lessen your humiliation.
Try sucking it up, being a man and admitting that you have made a whole bunch of mistakes then people around here might stop treating you like a joke.
I have provided a source that states clearly that all the Tu-95K-22’s were eliminated by 2000 yet you now demand proof proving that proof whilst providing nothing yourself.
Prove I said anything about K-22s being in service, (quote me like I said – since I just mentioned using Kh-22s on Bears, not Tu-95K22s being in service after I re-read what I said) and prove your source is right (40+ bombers decommissioned in 2 years) Or get lost. :dev2:
Your pathetic attempt to discredit me on points of little relevance aren’t really doing anything here. Go blinldly wave the star sprangled banner elsewhere.
dionisLike in “good communist times”. All was fullfilled with 100% and the economy was growing every year, till it collapsed from that published success suddenly for “unknown reasons”.
However, since these are now “good democratic times” – things gotta be better right? 😮
dionisReally looks like the Russian Air Force is not to healthy from what i can find on google.
That’s the saddest attempt I’ve ever seen to discredit the RuAF, possibly worse than the American flag wavers around here. I might as well find the B-52 bone yard pictures and say that’s the USAF :rolleyes:
dionisThe above proves that you are a liar. In post one you say that several have been returned to service, in post two you claim to have never said that any were in active servce.:rolleyes:
Again, this originated from the aviation forum. Go quote me there, then come back. I actually thought I said something about K22s in service, but I didn’t, and you made it look like I did. Pretty lame if you ask me.
I meant to say “there’s a source claiming several returned to service” not “that’s” . . . the link above was to show there were 40+ in service in the late 90s, which made it somewhat likely some could still be around. And it matters little towards the discussion both here and in the other forum.
If I come across the source about several being back in service, I’ll post it. It was something related to a transfer of Tu-95s from the Ukraine I think, but they were going to re-modify the aircraft to something else later.
Prove that Podvig’s essay is 100% accurate on every single K22 variant being out of service. I highly doubt he’s ever been to the restricted areas of Engels AFB.
And for a real zinger, is it 100% certain you can’t mount a Kh-22 on a Tu-95MS? Something I’ve never seen discussed.
dionisCongratulations you found the bold text function, but have said nothing, in fact you have made yourself look ridiculous (again) with this little gem: ‘Flight hours? not relevant’:rolleyes:
Do you want to be taken seriously here?:p
Just a tip, by the way. If you are trying to say “you are” it’s “you’re” not “your” – just something I’ve noticed from your posts in general around the forum, which leads me to believe you aren’t too bright (or smart) in general.
So let me break it down for you, really simple, like for a ten year old: If the pilots are completing assignments with 100% efficiency, what do flight hours really matter.
And secondly, as much as you hate to see it happen, with the improving economic situation / increasing defense budgets, the flight hours are going to increase whether you like it or not, especially for strategic aviation.
dionisThat must have been expensive. One reason why the USSR is with us no more, I should think.
Are they now, really.:rolleyes: Have you got a schedule of these training exercises, number of total hours flown, number of hours flown per pilot, flight profile, etc. Does anyone have such a schedule?
I do speak Russian (well, sort of). I have myself posted many Russian language links on the forum. And what do these video clips prove? That the Russian air force likes to make photo calls for the publicists and journalists, or what?
No, it’s not irrelevant to the point! If you want to find how much it costs for a particular country to operate a particular aircraft, a good system of estimation is to find out how much it costs to operate the same or similar aircraft in another country and then make your presumptions from there. I have seen figures for Russian air force operating costs for the Su-27 in the range of 8,000-10,000 USD per flying hours (??). Probably not much cheaper than it costs the USAF to operate their F-15s. America is usually quite a cheap country to operate aircraft (civilian anyway), perhaps even cheaper than in Russia, who knows?:confused:
Are you sure – maybe not such a difference – and fuel prices are not the only factor for consideration when calculating aircraft operating costs.
If you find all of this hard to believe, go find the information yourself, Google is your friend.
Sign In
