1MANYou do realise how many combat sorties the Coalition flew during the Gulf in 1991? And for those losses how much equipment did the Iraqi’s lose? Consider how many Iraqi aircraft were lost in comparison? Chased from the skies and waiting to get plinked all they could do was fly hundreds to Iran.
The Iranian air force chiefs of staff know that they will lose their airfields and with it a large proportion of their fighter capability. Do you think they are going to sit down and explain that to the Iranian leaders? No, of course not.
The Iranians leaders believe that their air force will be slicing the ‘infidels’ from the sky! No Iranian air force chief is going to risk losing his job by giving the leadership a reality check. They are quite happy to continue flying their aircraft for as long as possible. They are quite content to put on a propaganda show in extensive annual exercises and have praise and decorations languished upon them. In a conflict with the U.S. the Iranians would be better off flying their aircraft up the Caspian Sea to sanctuary in Russia.
Meanwhile the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Air Force nutters will be attempting to fly their bombed up Su-25s into U.S. aircraft carriers. 1man, how far do you think they will get? Remember to tune into ‘Tehran Bob’ to see the Iranians churning out snippets of western vessels being blown up in old test footage.
1. Regaurdless of how much the Iraqi Airforce lost, they still managed to take our 63 planes, no Iran will be able to do more than that.
2. Scince you keep saying the Irainians “believe” they will loose X-Amount of planes airfields, why don’t you show some sources that the Irainians “believe” this, instead of giving us what YOU believe the Irainians “Believe”:D
1MANWhat was the point of that? We all know these missiles exist, what you can not prove is that their air launched variants are in Russian service.
Why don’t you read more carefully, were it talks about that?
1MANAgreed that in the 70’s NATO would more than likely have lost a conventional ground war against the Warsaw Pact, But as early as 1982 the M-1 Abrams is in mass production, the A-10 fleet is at it’s largest number ever, the F-14,-15,-16 ,-18 are in full sqn service, USN has the TLAM, Harpoon, Iowa class Battleships, Kidd Class Destroyers, 688 Class Sub’s, and its early Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers. These would not have provided dominance over the Warsaw Pact on the ground but they would have denied WP the opportunity at air supremacy or the closing of the SLOC, providing a potentially valuable tipping point in the war.
1. What I said was from the 70’s till around 94/95 NATO had NO advantage over USSR/Russia, not just the 70’s.
2. Who do you figure no air supremacy when the numbers on the WP side were much greater?
1MANROFL!!! Mig-31 is a one-hit wonder.
MiG-31’s performance in certain areas is pretty much on par with the F-22.
And 200 of the 369 have been upgraded to M standard.
1MANFirstly, a NATO vs Warsaw Pact European conflict is almost inpossible to predict in its outcome, the permutations simply run into the thousands.
Though. I do believe that the conflict would be non-nuclear, as, despite NATO and WP doctrine of using tactical nuclear warheads after an armoured breakthrough, the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction would have forced battlefield commanders to on both sides to think twice about using nuclear weapons, as there would be great difficulty in maintaining a ‘limited’ tactical nuclear exchange, with a higher likelyhood of the being a large, strategic nuclear exchange., resulting in in nuclear destruction on an unforseen scale. It is this mutual fear of MAD that, I believe, would result in a conventional conflict. Furthermore, I do not believe that any side could have achieved victory in a protracted war in as shorter time as 7 days (assuming no nukes) as some have predicted. This is because with the advent of rapid mobile armoured and mechanized units, any breakthrough by either side (which would once have enabled enemy manouvre groups to exploit and interdict) could be absorbed by armoured units able to reform their frontlines and counterattack. Therefore, the war would become a battle of attrition, consuming men and material at an astronomical rate, and hence a Soviet victory would rely on being ably to block the SLOC (Sea Lines Of Communication), which, given NATOs vastly superior ASW assets, would be an extremely difficult task. Therefore, victory would go to whichever side retains men and supplies the best, as to which side that would be, is anyones guess.
From the 70’s till 95 NATO had NO advantages, better look at the data’s again.
1MAN3 Sunburns or 2 Onyx’s can be on Su-27’s and they will get much closer than 300km.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm
1MANFirstly this is common knowledge, Secondly this is the best online source I have found:
Go to the PDF: Russian/Sovjet Sea-based Anti-Ship Missiles, download it and go to the bottom of page 10.:rolleyes:
Whilst your at it count how many of the missiles that can be carried by Flankers and Fulcrums will put the launch aircraft more than 300km from the target.:rolleyes:
3 Sunburns or 2 Onyx’s can be on Su-27’s and they will get much closer than 300km.
1MANDionis,
You know what is being asked of the platforms you listed to hold contact with a carrier group?1MAN,
Its the SS-N-22 in NATO reporting terms!. Watch the video of the ‘purely fictional trials! 🙂
WHAT “FICTION” TRIALS, those missiles have been ready to go for YEARS:rolleyes: 😎 WAKE UP MMMAAANNNNN:D 😀 😀
1MANESSM has already been proven against a Vandal target simulating the Onyx/Yakhont profile under NAVSEA testing. SeaRAM should be capable against those weapons as much as against any other active radar weapon…as will conventional softkill decoy/jamming techniques. ONYX I’m afraid is old news.
SS-22 was, I thought, a 900km ranged liquid-fuelled SRBM that was dispensed with under the INF treaty?. As such it shouldnt present too many problems for a US battlegroup!. I will assume therefore that you mean Kh-22 (NATO: AS-4 Kitchen) which is pretty much the weapons system that the SPY1/SM2 radar/missile combination was designed to defeat. The British GWS30 Sea Dart system was quite capable of intercepting Kh-22 as well.
Could you provide some indication of the source of your confidence in Onyx and Kh-22 perhaps?
SS-22
1. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm
2. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm
3. http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.101/cruise_detail.asp
SS-26 “ONYX”
1. http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ship-Missiles/Yakhont_a001021001.aspx
2. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakhont
P.S. those “NAVSEA testing” are pure thoretical, and proove nothing.:D
Now could YOU provide your source/S that state otherwise??
1MANI dont know whay you qouted me for that as I am well aware of it, but do not get carried away with this idea of lots and lotd of missiles. The intention behind the doctrine was always to swamp the target with incoming missiles. A Kirov does not carry twenty Granits to sink twenty ships, it carrys them becouse it expects very few of them to get through. Each CVBG would have dozens of missiles targeted at it.
I can assure your your wrong, care to give a source on that claim?
1MANWhats the question here really though Schumacher?.
You ask specifically if Tu-22M3 and OscarII can sink a US CVBG or will AEGIS defeat them. You are therefore, presumably, asking whether the Tu-22’s Kh-22Ms and SSGNs P-700’s can penetrate the USN’s shipboard defensive systems.
Well. There is no easy answer for that. If the USN are at peacetime state and caught by surprise, like the Su-24 incident, it may well be that the Russians can get their shots off before the USN can get themselves to air-raid warning red condition. With a nuclear warhead detonation you scratch a battlegroup simple as.
If the USN group is on a war footing and fully alert…with the systems in place today…I would doubt that the Russians would even track the group successfully for any length of time let alone fire on it. With E-2’s up, even if an Oscar did get lucky with a passive sonar hit, it would be difficult to see 20 P-700’s saturating the combined SM-2/ESSM envelope of three or more Ticos/Burkes covering the group.
Don’t know how good searam is but the other shipboard defensive systems.
will NOT syop the SS-22 or ONYX.
1MANThis one will cause a real fight. However there are only really two important issues.
1)How effective is the Soviet/Russian doctrine versus US CVBG’s, this will create a massive row here but the reality is that no one knows and the only way to find out is to have a real war………..hardly a desirable prospect.
2)If this doctrine is capable of taking out a US CVBG (again unanswerable to us) the question is could the current Russian Armed forces do it. Post communism their strategic ocean recon satellite system has fallen to a pitiful level of capability which greatly undermines the ability of the Russians to actually find a US battle group. What is certain is that if they found one they only really have the assets to take out one or two, a loss that the USN could absorb without to much difficulty.
So the answer to your basic question is, no one really knows. If the wider question is can a the Russians beat the USN then the answer is no.
Now be prepared to be told that the Russians could wipe out the USN and that the Russians are completely useless and would be wiped out in an instant.;)
You must not do enough reasearching, because Russia has plenty of antiship missiles for Su-27/ MiG-29 to fly out and sink all 14 U.S. Carriers, remember 2000 when they were suprised by them, and then tried to lie and say hey knew they were there, carriers have been “obsolete” for about 35 years, they are only good against 3 world nations.
1MANIIRC,
IrBis-E (As Advertised)
1m^2 -> 300+ kmAN/APG-77 (As per ATF requirement)
1m^2 -> 230+ km in LPI modeWhat about the other toys available? (Please clearly state whether data are official or not)
AN/APG-63(V3/4), 79, 80, 81
CAESAR, RBE2 AESA, NORA – AESA, EL/M-2052Please feel free to add any. I just would loved to see the figures for these RADARs. From what is advertised IrBis-E is a humongous beats! 😮 😮
Wrong APG-77 from what I read is 3m^2 at 240km
1MANYou do realise how many combat sorties the Coalition flew during the Gulf in 1991? And for those losses how much equipment did the Iraqi’s lose? Consider how many Iraqi aircraft were lost in comparison? Chased from the skies and waiting to get plinked all they could do was fly hundreds to Iran.
The only way thats possible is if the U.S destroys thier airdefences/aircraft in the first 2-3 days,(which they won’t)
The Iranian air force chiefs of staff know that they will lose their airfields and with it a large proportion of their fighter capability. Do you think they are going to sit down and explain that to the Iranian leaders? No, of course not.
The Iranians leaders believe that their air force will be slicing the ‘infidels’ from the sky! No Iranian air force chief is going to risk losing his job by giving the leadership a reality check. They are quite happy to continue flying their aircraft for as long as possible. They are quite content to put on a propaganda show in extensive annual exercises and have praise and decorations languished upon them. In a conflict with the U.S. the Iranians would be better off flying their aircraft up the Caspian Sea to sanctuary in Russia.
Meanwhile the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Air Force nutters will be attempting to fly their bombed up Su-25s into U.S. aircraft carriers. 1man, how far do you think they will get? Remember to tune into ‘Tehran Bob’ to see the Iranians churning out snippets of western vessels being blown up in old test footage.[/QUOTE]
Well they will fly thier Chinese antiship missiles into them I know that, you Americans always make things look easy/one sided on paper, and then have the nerve to accuse Russians of doing it, :rolleyes:
1MANyou might want to check your sources on N-001. I wouldn’t trust any of these Russian brochure figures.
That’s my fault I ment 100km NOT miles.
Sign In
