Ray,

So, thanks to that very comprehensive list we can see that, since the start of 2006 the Russians have launched precisely one US-PM ocean recon and one Tselina-2 ELINT bird…with the ELINT platform not even necessarily tasked to the maritime job. I think you may have made my point quite adequately!

:diablo:

i read the whole thing, but you are missing the point – shades of what you said above?!

the point made was simple. that the soviets were not in full readiness as there was no threat of a shooting war, same as the USN wasnt when the soviets overflew the carrier. andy picos “my ding dong was biggest” commentary is interesting but only tangentially so in that case same as the russians bragging about how they got the carrier dead to rights etc.

and since it was not a case of high tension, war about to break it, they wouldnt have been operating on full readiness apart from just doing the usual with the other carrier. flight hours, maint is expensive, even if you are the soviet union.

the soviets flying out in force thereafter is akin to the us carrier scrambling after the russians overflew it.

but the issue is that if both sides were on full alert, could the us have pulled it off? that is yet to be proven despite what pico writes.

Nick,

You are spinning events a bit here though arent you?. The Kittyhawk overflight was a situation where the USN were fully aware that Russian tactical aircraft were in theatre and inbound…they were just at too low a readiness condition, because of the ongoing UNREP, to actually do much of anything about it – short of launching SM2’s of course.

The scenario the good Cdr Pico describes is one of the Soviets not knowing anything about the presence of the USN groups in theatre. The Russians bragging about overflying a US carrier that was fairly easy to localise, through open source publication of its transit, and in the middle of an UNREP evolution was a pushing things just a bit….two carrier groups conducting full operations off a, potentially, hostile coastline, undetected, in full view of the systems a superpower put in place to prevent just those operations is something a bit different!.

Flex,

I feel your pain sir, bad luck!.

Garry,

You mean like Sea Wolf and Sea Dart will make Exocets obsolete?

Dont remember anyone stating that Sea Wolf would make Exocet obsolete – though it should be noted no ship mounting Sea Wolf was actually struck by an AM39 in that action?!. Sea Dart was intended to shoot down high-altitude Badgers, Bears and supersonic diving AShM’s – it was never likely to down an Exocet!.

The interesting factor to derive from the Falklands, if you want to extrapolate some kind of tenuous point, is that no ship that employed countermeasures in the face of Exocet was hit. The Exocet seeker – an ARH just like those fitted to 3M54E/E1 and Yakhont and Kh-22 and…..and….!!!

You mean like saying that a weapon system has defeated another weapon system in testing therefore that weapon system is obsolete and it is back to square one?

The initial question was whether two specific platforms could be successful engaging a specific target. The answer was that the specific target in question was equipped with defense systems proven against exactly the threat the attack systems posed. The probability of a successful attack was therefore low.

I doubt there are many fencers and backfires attached to the Russian navy that are deployed in the centre of Russia thousands of kms from the sea.

By the same token though, Garry, a carrier off the Kamchatka may not have to sweat the Backfires assigned to operate with the Northern Fleet…so not exactly 145 Backfires aginst our poor little carrier group is it?!.

It is going to take rather more than a passive sonar hit to make the Russians want to kill a carrier group.

Good job we arent talking about politics or the reasons for our ‘engagement’ then isnt it.

Yes, of course, the uber alert conditions… not emitting anything… yet able to detect anything under, on or above the sea at max range… Russia just needs one of those really doesn’t she?

Read the article that detailed the progression of that action. The commentator notes that a message was recieved from CIC stating that Russian tacair activity was detected 40 minutes before the overflight!. That is at minimal readiness!. What does it matter if the Russians need one or not?.

Yeah, WWIII the ground war would never have happened because when the Soviet generals waited the 3 months for the lower readiness units to come on like NATO would have kicked their asses…

Odd comment. It has been, reasonably reliably, established that NATO naval defensive weaponry can engage targets with the flight profile of every antiship missile that has been listed. The only chance the attack has to succeed then is with saturation fire. Assembling enough shooting platforms to assure that saturation fire is a basic pre-requisite to launching the attack. Using forces piecemeal and attack with ‘whats on hand’ would be absurd as losses and regeneration time would interrupt the weighted strike necessary to achieve saturation and, most importantly, it would tip off the USN group that they were being tracked. Idiocy of the highest calibre.

Shame it is all pretty useless against the real threats to the US so they hide behind… we are invincible and no one can touch our carriers when their current threats could care less about their carriers let alone all their tanks etc.

Irrelevant to the discussion on the thread. Try at obfuscation Garry?.

Of course it is in a poor state… WTF do they need to be able to track US carriers for?

To be able to guide the great big supersonic missiles in their inventory perhaps?. To stop platforms, expensive to run platforms at that, like the heavy rocket cruisers and the Oscar class subs from being largely valueless?.

About 10-15 seconds with the right software. AI… gotta love it really.
Once it is trained to recognise a signature it can find a needle in a haystack in seconds… without moving any hay.

Not a chance!. SAR satellites do not operate in real time – the data from a 100km strip width at 8kms long track easily exceeds downlink speeds. They buffer the data then download whilst the next strip is scanning, or when they come back in reach of a downlink station. SAR satellites are not search assets – they are imaging assets. If sme other theatre surveillance system gets a hit on the carrier group then you strip image at high res, maybe 10m, over a 50km strip for the ident but you need the carrier position firmly before you can do that.

Unless the US carriers are also icebreakers then they have fairly limited areas they can be anywhere near strike distance from Russia. Searching those areas would be quick and relatively easy with modern searching software

Nope not the case. USN carriers managed to launch SIOP simulated missions on extreme cold weather tests in the Arctic Ocean. IIRC at least one of the carriers that took part was the Forrestal. If the group can find reasonably open water….and there is that even farther north than Bear Island during the winter months…it can launch strikes. Obviously the North Pacific is somewhat more friendly to operate even way up past the Aleutians. Look at a map….still a LOT of sea to cover!.

SAR(Synthetic Aperture Radar) satellite image of aircraft carrier flight deck. The following images is most likely taken by a civilian/commercial surveillance satellite. The article is outdated. China has already launched 2 SAR satellites.

25m resolution is necessary to tell a carrier apart from a large merchie – IF the aspect is right. See how long it takes to search hundreds of thousands of sq.km’s with a 25m imager…or two!.

Star I have answered, reasonably patiently, all of the points you have asked above. I can only assume you are not interested in reading what I write, dont understand what I write or are willfully ignoring what I write because you dont like what I am saying.

The basic fact is its unimportant which of these three is the issue as the outcome is the same. I am bored of trying to explain this and have no further interest in discussing this with you.

After more than 8 years on this site you may be amused to find that I have never used the ‘ignore’ function of this forum. You may be further amused to know that you are the first person I am using it on. Good day to you sir.

Star

why transporting missiles with associated crew from one place to another is such a big issue. Nearly all of there airplanes have rough field capaiblity.

Yes but it will take hours, and I dont mean just a couple, to shift that kind of ordnance. Remember what I was saying about ‘tracking’ a contact and surviveable reconaissance assets?. The whole challenge to mounting multi-element airstrikes is to get the package assembled and on-target before to target information ages out. If you are having to wait on resources or airframes to be generated then your strike coordination is out of the window from the kickoff.

It has clearly coorelation. It is not just aircraft that u have to shift to forward operating bases in case of war but associated Spares, ground crew, ammunition, food to those remote location. Having 500 IL-76 gives tremendous flexibility not only in operation but keep flight hours up for bomber crew.

Yes all true and very worthy, but, in terms of short-notice strike generation absolutely meaningless. You are saying that, because the Russians have hundreds of Il-76’s then ALL necessary ordnance is guaranteed to be in all theatres at 100% maintenance ready status?.

couple of hundred kms?. how far was that 2005 russian-china exercise from coast when A single A-50 provide all the command and control for Naval and air platforms?

Oh good grief. EXERCISE!!!!. Exercises have defined exercise areas and schedules in order to get all the training necessary for both players!. No point having a PLAN ADEX scheduled if the Russian tactical strikers never find the PLAN ships to attack them!!.

the problem with ur reasoning is that only West understand things on other side and can properly plan for it in reasonable amount of cost but the fact is it is scientist and engineers from Soviet system that provided critical know how to 90s information age in various diciplines. even last economics prize winner.

My reasoning is not reasoning though. It is actual operational reality backed up with anecdotal evidence from actual deployments and weapons test serials. The USSR HAD some great scientists, Russia today has very many worthy institiutions but those facts do nothing to alter the reality that Russian supersonic missiles are dependent on targetting systems that do not exist and fly profiles that have been countered, demonstrably, by western shipboard systems.

so we should not discuss weopons catalogue. it is the quality of weopons not the just the platform.

Where did I say ‘dont discuss them’? Star?. What I am saying, repeatedly, is that to discuss them sensibly you have to understand the place they have in the whole structure of an attack….and that is at the very end of a long chain of processes that have to work first.

Once you grasp that point you will understand that the ‘I have Kh-22’s….die yankee scumbag carriers’ mentality that some here feel the need to display is a bit ridiculous!.

Not a big issue. considering they could spare 100 IL-76 for Tsunami and many more from private firms.

Nope you’ve lost me on that one….I have absolutely no idea what correlation 145 Backfires and weapons stocks, potentially, unfortunately placed has to 100 Il-76’s being readied for Tsunami relief?.

So u are automatically assuming that Russians dont have idea of harpoon/Tomhawk/SM-2?. they have been training with much faster and manevorable missiles.

No, I am saying that the Russians cannot target for sh1t beyond a couple of hundred kms from their coast and even that capability being patchy at best. They tied their wagons, largely, to their satellite capability and lost big style when it fell on its backside. It was precisely this problem, I was presuming, that was the real driver behind their new coastal surveillance capability GarryB and I have mentioned and my question to Garry regarding the progress of the system design/implementation.

The Kh-31, of both flavours, being a supersonic diving missile of the type already countered, in the successful trials shown on video, by the ESSM weapons system. Amongst others.

My….hello square one….haven’t seen you in a while!.