Translating this entire thing would take forever… Anyone got some specific part I can translate for them? 😛

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:

And sending CVGBs to some of the most deadly anti-ship forces is also a great idea, I’m sure America can afford to do that! 😎

It’s too bad that they’ve also lost their designated F-14 deterrent to large air saturation attacks, I bet that’s a real stinker eh? :rolleyes:

Those Super Hornets are just amazing pieces of aircraft. . . 😮

Kh-15 launch range data is also inconsistent, with ranges from 150 – 250+ KM being sighted by various sources. More interesting is how good are those Standard/Sea Sparrow missiles at intercepting stuff coming in at Mach 4.

GarryB has also provided the same opinion as me about the mod ability of the Kh-55 / Kh-65. It’s logical. Your logic clearly isn’t working in this case.

Also, how is anything I provided a fantasy fleet? The only “fantasy” element to the listed forces above is their placement on Russian territory – ie, possibly using every single platform right at once. No one said that entire thing would swamp some ceritain number of US CVBGs, but depending on the position of the attack, some combination of the above forces could obviously be used. It’s hilarious how people always fail to discuss case specific scenarios, and always get carried away by garbage like “omg when is the Yakhont really gonna be on every plane in the RuAF? or how many ESSM ships there will be in 20 years..” or something similar . . And just how many fantasy ESSM ships are in service anyway to stand any chance at all to a saturation attack from mostly supersonic/hypersonic missiles?

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.

I’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.

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 😀

I 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.

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 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:

I 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?

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:

There 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.

My post contained far more substance than any of yours have thus far on this forum. You may wish to go back to the start of this thread and re-read the title………you will then realise that most of what you typed above is completely irrelevant. Nobody said anything about a ‘US Invasion force’ the question refers specifically to the destruction of a CVBG. An invasion force is utterly incomprehensible becouse of MAD anyway. Now go and get your nappy changed learn to read and re-enter the real world then come back and apologise.:rolleyes:

Oh yeah and by the way I have provided more sources than you in this thread.:rolleyes:

You are a funny guy, you know? All you provided was an article that copied stuff from the J.E.D. Amazing. You could get info on Russian ASMs from plenty of other places. It says little to NOTHING about their efficiency against the latest US air/fleet defenses, and vice versa.

Invasion force.. or CVBG.. is still an attack from water. The Russian armed forces are specifically designed to deal with this kind of aggression, as they always have been since Soviet times.

If you want to go back on the original question, “Could Oscar IIs and Tu-22M3s destroy a CVBG?” Maybe. Maybe not. That’s the best answer.

But that’s also not how it works, is it?

Do Oscars and Backfires just venture out alone? No. Not Soviet (or Russian) doctrine. A wise guy such as yourself doesn’t need that to be quoted from somewhere, do you? I mean, you should know that.

Edit: Your entire first page of rambling, including the “big” #13 answer, has no links or anything I could see. The #13 post coulda really used some.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home

^ What’s up with this anyway?

Did they update every single US Navy ship to handle missiles like the Klub in the last 2 years already?

Did they test them against hypersonic AS-16s?