Google the meaning of the word ‘most’.:rolleyes:

I’ll do that right after you point out how (with credible evidence) you concluded that the Tu-22M is the most survivable asset the Russians have.

Just a couple of points.

1) If the entire operationally capable Russian Navy sortied they would only really have enough assets immediately available to do 1 or 2. People often forget that this doctrine was not a sniper type affair by any stretch of the imagination. This would have involved the launching of dozens of missiles from aircraft, submarines and cruisers (the idea that China’s 4 Sovremennys are capable of realistically sinking a USN carrier is absurd) to target a single CVBG. Remember that not only has the Russian fleet lost huge numbers of ships since 1990 it also never completed the building program that it had underway in the 1980s.

2) The most dangerous western assets in this scenarion are the USN and RN SSN’s they are available in large numbers and are at least as good as their Russian counterparts. They would likely decimate both the Russian surface fleet and her submarine force. massively limiting Russia’s surface strike capacity. In addition to this the western subs carry large numbers of Tomahawks (as do the DDG’s) which will massively undermine the functioning of required Russian shore facilities making doing it for a second time very difficult indeed.

SOC: I have no doubt that the USN would be put out by the loss of a CVBG but it would be able to absorb the loss. If such an event happened the rules of the game would be changed and although the waters would be uncharted I have no doubt that the USN would fill them with warships. If this ever happened the US would put every vessel it could get a crew together for to sea. Through reconfiguring the amphibious flattops and getting the vessels out of the reserve fleet the USN could probably surge to 30 carriers in a matter of months dependent on crew availability. There is no way that the Russians could handle the naval mobilisation that would result from the destruction of one CVBG.

The most survivable assets the Russians would have would be the Tu-22M’s, even their medium term survival would be highly dubious.

It is worth noting that the Soviet naval revival of the 1980s was essentially a repeat of Stalins in the 1950s, they just replaced guns with missiles. Fortunately thus far we have yet to find out if either would actually work.

In terms of defending an attack, the US CVBGs would have to worry about a lot more than Tu-22M3s. Any anti-ship or anti-radar capable surface-to-surface or air-to-surface platform would be deployed, including coastal defense batteries… Su-24s, Tu-160s, Tu-95s…

The amount of crap the Russians could muster for defense is rather insane.

For very short range missions it might carry two.
Another likely war load will probably be up to 10 Kh-15s with 6 in an internal bay and four mounted on the four external main hardpoints. This is described as the standard load in export information.
Of course there are the Naval Tu-22M3s and the AF Tu-22M3s… different roles, different missions, different weapons loads and distances to targets. (and of coruse different targets too).

“The bomber is equipped with a maximum of three Kh-22 cruise missiles or up to ten Kh-15 (AS-16) short-range missiles.”

From FAS.org – says upto *3* Kh-22s? Bad info?

How is a Naval Tu-22M3 different from a regular one in terms of the different weapons load? You mean just the type of missile/seeker etc, or different airframe for more/less payload?

maybe you can show us these superb russian ships.
how many warships with more than 1000t did russia build in the last 10 years (and which are in service today)? let me think: none? e.g.: do you really think, that 20 year old air defence ships are better than new burkes or de zeven’s or …?
if russia has all that money and the economic power why are they not able to repair and modernise their ships (not to talk about building new ones). i have seen some nice drawings from new ships but you can not rule the see with drawings.

no more political replies from me. i made my point clear, that’s all. let us talk about the superb russian navy. 😀

a 20 year old kirov could pulverize any US made cruiser anyway..

how about a video? 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXOKz1QRlvQ&search=tsar%20bomb

many i’m sure have seen it here though..

Can anyone speculate what kind of damage an AS-16 would do to a ship like this?