dionisNow 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:
Every 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.
dionisShow us any evidence of Flankers in Russian service equipped with Onyx or Sunburn.:rolleyes:
The 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:
dionisJonesy, you do understand that the Tu-142MR / Tu-95RT (if any are in service) for the latter can guide both the SS-N-12 and SS-N-19, both of which have special guidance modes that allow them to effectively engage at maximum range?
The Ka-25B/27B can do the same, as can the A-50 variants.
dionisYou are kidding me right?
An A-50 basic model can detect a large surface ship at 400KM away…
There are plenty of these to go around, in A-50U possibly variants, with escorts to look for US Carrier groups off shore.
I’m guessing that massive AEGIS signal they can get on RWR won’t be hard to miss either?
This is, of course, unless the US CVBGs are sleeping like they were when the Sukhois decided to start an airshow around them? 😉
dionisYou are right in the fact that these situations would be much more complex than we can describe on these boards, Jonesy..
But if you spoke a word of Russian, you’d notice that youtube video I linked was a prime example of how Russians train to use bombers from every corner of the country to practice various assaults, with escorts, A-50 controlling, etc…
Like I’ve said, the listing of the shooting platforms does NOT mean every single one of them will fire every single missile on lets say – 6 US carrier groups if the US can even spare that many at the moment or at all.
In some situations, maybe they’ll be able to spare only 4 Oscar II subs to defend themselves (say on the Pacific coast), on the other hand, if they get the long heads up on the incoming attack, who says the North Fleet’s subs can’t make there way around to the pacific? and vice versa..
dionisNow 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.
They 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!
dionisThe 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.
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
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.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message461289/pg1 <— Stuff like that also makes me go :O
dionisSo 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.
But 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 themselves. .
Also those Super Hornets will have to worry about Su-27SM/Mig-31M patrols, SAMs on land, lots of stuff too.
This situation is too ambiguous to clearly find an outcome. How close is it to Russian territory, where, etc.
I think 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.
dionisNever said it was mission impossible but it is a fantasy weapon in the sense that no Bears in service today are able to carry the Kh-22.:rolleyes:
Given the 150km quoted range for the Kh-15 it would likely be a risky scenario given the proliferations of Standards as well as the carriers own Hawkeyes an Hornets. I have said from the outset that the Tu-22M’s are likely the most survivable asset in this scenario given the ability of the US to infest waters with SSN’s
Back 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?
@sealordlawrence
Those Bears, that remained in service, can be fitted to carry Kh-22 if a need arise. I don’t think that would be a mission impossible for the Russians.Now let alone those Bears and Blackjacks, and let me ask you about Backfires; Tu-22M3 loaded with high-speed Kh-15 (5 mach) escorted by a sufficient number of MiG-31s and Su-27SMs and guided by A-50M, do you think F/A-18E/Fs and E/A-6Bs are gonna be a match for these attackers?
Also, don’t forget that there’s the Navy assets + Su-24s which can throw plenty of Kh-17A/Ps towards the carrier group!
dionisGarryB said nothing about Kh-65’s being in service.:rolleyes:
Now prove that there are Kh-65s in service and that the Kh-101 has an anti-shipping capability or accept the fact that America has a Death Star (after all you can not prove that they do not have one:rolleyes: ) and stop posting. If you can not prove there existance then you are just a pathetic fantasist.
Oh yeah a US carrier can make 30 knots, so its a bit different to an oil rig.:rolleyes:
So you are saying that 30 knots would make it a blur in a high end cruise missile camera? :rolleyes:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/ruaf7.htm
Made in 1998, from your favorite source: Jane’s.
While there was rubbish talk about cancelling Tu-160s (guess the late 1990s sucked for the RuAF – duh, that’s all history now), BUT check out the info about planned upgrades for Tu-160/95s. What’s been done to them now, basically.
Capability to carry Kh-101/SD/65 were all there.
I wonder why? :rolleyes:
Also, the talk about making Su-27SMs carry Kh-15s is just nasty. 😮
dionisOnce again, you have no evidence of Kh-101’s having any AShM capability, also read post 158 by Sferrin.:rolleyes:
You also have no evidence of any Kh-65’s existing or being service, or of any program to make any or that it is possible to convert Kh-55’s to the same standard.
Anti-shipping Kh-101’s and available Kh-65’s are nothing but fantasy weapons that you have created.
Oh yeah and your attempt to explain the irrelevance of what you are talking about actually just explained why it is relevant.:rolleyes:
I’ve just asked you to elaborate on why you think the Kh-65 has NOT entered service, especially after what GarryB said on page 5. You chose to ignore it. :rolleyes: All you’ve said is “I don’t see it in service with my own eyes so it must be not there…”
Also, all sferrin did was talk about the Tomahawk and its guidance. Tomahawks aren’t Kh-101, I’m sorry to inform you. 🙁 And no one is creating any fantasy dedicated anti-ship Kh-101s, but I’m just not ruling out the possibility they could hit something the size of a huge building on water. Cause that’s what a carrier is. Does your theory mean the Kh-101 can’t hit an oil rig that’s stationary because it’s on water? But if an oil rig started being dragged to another spot, it would all of a sudden become unhittable.
More importantly, I’m glad you finally see that the capabilities of the Kh-101 and Kh-65 were merely icing on the cake in terms of Russian anti-shipping. You may have hope. 😉
dionis😀 😀 😀 Seriously stop posting I dont actually know how you can keep doing this to yourself!:D 😀 😀
1) It was you who raised the idea of Kh-65’s and Anti-ship Kh-101’s, not me so, now what you are saying is that you raised an irrelevant point!:D Not to mention the fairly obvious question as to how discussion of potential AShM’s is irrelevent to a discussion about sinking aircraft carriers.:rolleyes:
2) Bears Launching Kh-22’s, all those aircraft were ‘eliminated’ by 2000….8 years ago.:D
3)Care to explain how you think a Kh-55 can be turned into a Kh-65, it would need a new warhead, a new fuel system, a new guidance system and if its over nine years old it will need a new engine as well. Then we need to add to that the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that it can be done.:D
4) It has just been explained to you by two other posters why a Kh-101 can not target a moving ship yet you have chosen to ignore them.:D
Your posts here are laughable due to your complete lack of knowledge on this subject. You have no idea what you are talking about and are utterly ignorant of reality. The fact that you have now resorted to calling your own points in this subject irrelevant and the discussion of anti-ship missiles in a thread about sinking ships pointless just shows what a joke you really are.:D
I really should just post things to keep you busy on irrelevant stuff some more so you don’t mess up the main discussion, but replying to you has become better than most comedies on TV 😎
So considering you are so thick that you fail to see why the tangents you went on are irrelevant, let me try to explain this to you like I would to a 10 year old. Kh-65s and Kh-101s were just another possible variable to add to the anti-shipping equation that could be delivered by Russia, but the most irrelevant because of the subsonic speed, leaving it probably the easiest to shoot down targets for the USN, so it was completely irrelevant to the entire discussion. Can you understand this or no?
As far as the Tu-95K22 was concerned, last I read decomissioning started in the late ’90s, so if they scrapped them all in a few years.. then wonderful. But if they didn’t..
All sferrin explained was that it would be dangerous to move bombers close to a CVBG, so he didn’t explain much about Kh-101 seekers targetting huge, slow moving objects.
In terms of replacing the parts of the Kh-55, care to tell me why the Russians haven’t potentially done this already to some of their own missiles, and just not cared to report it to the rest of the world? That must be absurd right, cause Jane doesn’t know about it. :rolleyes: 😉
Care to explain why you think a new seeker and guidance system is so hard to install, especially since the parts obviously exist? Engines are probably irrelevant since they likely update those anyway, to keep the missiles in shape? Your fuel system comment is interesting, and I’d like you to elaborate on that.
dionisSo you’re proposing getting a Blackjack or Bear within line of sight on a CVBG? Have fun. :diablo:
Why would that be so difficult? Super Hornets with their “amazing” combat patrol radii?
The only thing that would limit the Bear/Blackjack range is the range of the transmitter on the Kh-101. Now that would be some great info to have I guess.
The missile is rumored to have a range of 5000KM, which is massive, and its guidance specifics are rather vague unfortunately – leaving its communication method to the launch platform in question as well.
So essentially, the missile could potentially be able to transmit an image feed back to the launch platform?
dionisIf its the only thing you post then it will be the only thing that gets responded to.:rolleyes:
The Kh-101 is a very impressive land attack missile, but it is just that, a land attack missile. It is a shame that they cancelled the propfan version (just becouse I think it would have been cool really). This is not a fanboy thing this is an issue of you being wrong, like you were wrong about Kh-65’s being in service and like you were wrong about current Bears being able to launch Kh-22’s. All these mistakes were becouse you do not know what you are talking about.:p
Sferrin and Djcross have sufficiently answered your question.
No you just completely failed to discuss a more specific scenario than the rather silly question of the original poster 😮 which you proceeded to answer with babble about ESSM or something.
There was nothing “wrong” about me mentioning Bears potentially launching Kh-22s, since their decomissioning may not have been completed 100%. Also irrelevant to the main point at hand, just like the potential deployment/reconfiguring of the Kh-55 into Kh-65s instead of scrapping a perfectly fine missile.
So what you did instead, was totally ignore all the fully functioning Russian anti-ship platforms in the discussion as a potential threat, and started ranting on about things that weren’t even that important (ie, decommissioning of Bears and Kh-55/65s) :rolleyes:
If you are so close minded that you can’t talk about potentially variable uses of a very advanced new missile, then just leave the discussion.
I’ve already pointed out why the Kh-101 can possibly attack a sea target based on older Soviet/Russian tech. Now it would be great to see some input from others, and no, your “You are wrong about irrelevant other points” comments don’t help. But thanks anyway.
dionisFor a SMAC? Yes, that’s why the antiship version of Tomahawk used a radar instead of it’s normal guidance system.
Correct!
However, as with the Kh-59ME, the Su-24 pilot can update the target of the missile inflight as he gets the feed from the TV seeker.
Considering a warship isn’t the fastest moving object in the world (and something the size of a carrier!), I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tu-160/Tu-95MS pilots could do the same from their consoles on the aircraft especially since they’ve gotten/are getting massive electronics refitting for the new missiles to maximize their efficiency.
Sign In
