SeverodvinskSorry, didn’t see your first post. The Papa was equally important to Alpha, it was the high speed hydrodynamics and propulsion test. Of course it’s not a good development strategy, I never said that either. I don’t even believe that. Since every single unit, costs a LOT. The single Papa will have cost a LOT more than the Victor units.
As for Sierra and Akula, Akula was chosen over Victor. There is always a high-end and low end in their developments. Kirov had Slava as low end, Mike was the high end of Victor. Sierra was the high end of Akula (I think, or was it the other way around). Anway, this way did give them some advantages for research and I think they might know a lot more about submarines then US, the latter hasn’t really come up with anything “stunningly new”. And of course, they could use the Sierra I design for the Sierra II. If they would, like you suggest think after building a Sierra, that it was a failure and impossible to build more of them, why do you think they developped Sierra II then?
This as a side note. As I suppose, the Sierra’s and all other experimental craft have given them a huge research project, yet didn’t add to their strength, and as Jonesy said, took a lot of money that could have been used for more “successful projects”.
Seahawk, how much do three CVBGs cost? I know, probably 10 times the price of my SuAG… Yet I do still stand a chance, considering I have the long-range missiles and still quite a good AD. While your J-7s in that same situation. Well, they wouldn’t even be capable of launching a single NSM.
SeverodvinskYou guys are unbelievable… You don’t see my point in this matter, so I’ll leave it like that. As I previously mentioned.
The carrier isn’t the target anymore Steve, but the Granit can also kill frigs, destroyers and every ship you can come up with. And Since I don’t take price in account, they are all equially valuable for my missile to spend one on.
SeverodvinskHaha Steve, the three carriers are just a measure of insurance. Who has the money to send 500 J-7s with 1,000 NSMs in a single role? Same question guys… Still quite expensive. Even then, your J-7s can’t actually do anything when that carrier just stays far enough out to allow its own planes to go out and raid.
Hypersonic attack on airfields? Are we going to make our battleground bigger? Basically, you are supposing Russia will not see anything coming… We are not playing Red Storm Rising here…
I’m not saying apart from Russia, they can’t sell the thing anyway. Don’t ask me why, since US can sell Tomahawk to UK… Anyhow, how many countries have NSM??? I think less than Granit at the moment.
How many have Klub, Kh-31, Kh-35? Indeed several more.
Severodvinskhmm, and how far are your J-7s going to fly? If that carrier is smart, it waits for another two carriers to arrive, then with their combined force, they can stay well out of the range of your J-7s and send their Air Group to slaughter the planes first. Like you said, pave the way for the carrier to get close enough for land-attack ops.
SeverodvinskBTW, Dionis, no, only one Udaloy was built as ASuW ship, not converted. It had a complete new weapons suite, including two Kashtans instead of the AK-630s, Moskit instead of Rastrub, AK-130 instead of the two single 100mm turrets. This unit however is still classed as a ASW vessel, because of its good sonar suite and helo and torpedo capabilities. The other units are all still in their original role.
Seahawk,
A Harpoon would not kill a carrier, I’m almost sure it would not even disturb air ops that much. Yes a hit would be a good PR case, but a kill would be much better. And coming close enough with your NSM to shoot at a carrier… Well I don’t think that will be a good way.
I think your carrier group will be VERY busy if you want to clear that ASuW task force out of the way, including all those Oscars (of which you don’t know how many there are around you, let alone WHERE they are, except for the ones starting their launch(and then it’s too late), or found by luck).
I don’t think it’s easy to take out the Kirov and Kuznetsov with its escorts at all… And I’m sure Jonesy will even agree on that!
SeverodvinskSorry there Jonesy, they weren’t wrong at all, and it even resulted in a still higher knowledge in certain areas. The Soviets have paid for their too many designs too little ships politics. They developed Papa, built one unit, developed Alfa, built 5 units, designed Sierra, built two units, developped Sierra II, built two units. This isn’ t the right way, but it does give you some very good information. (and of course many many economical factors too) But that’s not the discussion here is it?
Hmm, sorry Steve but again you are wrong, a supertanker and a carrier are something completely different. I was talking about not hitting anything in the supertanker, the carrier would be the adverse, plenty of stuff to hit and plenty of that that is explosive. The supertanker would only survive if the missile would hit an empty part. If that tanker is filled… You could take “Luxembourg” as an example, a terrorist attack in the Gulf against this VLCC. The thing got completely wrecked. What emerged later, The tanker only had two tanks filled, and the terrorists seemed to have land-based contacts and knew which tanks it were, hence their boat full of explosives exploded just next to a filled tank. Otherwise this attack would probably not have sunk the tanker. In a carrier, all parts are filled, with mostly dangerous things, wouldn’t want any missile hit in the propulsion part, nor would I like to see a missile protruding into the hangar and explode in the middle… I mean, if you hit an empty tank and protrude into it, there’s nothing that will be wrecked except for the walls and top, for a carrier, there are planes that could be hit a propulsion plant that could be hit (yes, on a tanker that’s only a very small part in the back of the ship, in a carrier and other naval vessels that’s something running from amidships to the back). And yes I’ve heard the “It’s compartmentized to death” argument a lot. But how fast do you think you can close all your compartments? This missile might hit as many as three compartments, do you think you can close all those doors? Are there watertight doors in all those bulkheads? I suppose not. And you don’t really have to sink the carrier to kill it, I suppose a hangar hit a-la-Sum of all Fears, is good enough to stop air operations.
So you accept that the costs of the weapons, the costs of the surveillance and targetting assets and the costs of the acquisition, operation and maintenance of some very significant hulls all come into the system cost-to-deploy equation.
Sure I do Sir! Because they were developed to destroy even more valuable targets. If those carriers weren’ t there, Granit wouldn’t have ever been developed, they would have stayed with the slow bunch like Siren/Malakhit, Switchblade/Uran.
Yet as I already said, I don’t care about costs. Being cheap doesn’t make your missile more superior. It’s probably the same as saying a Sovremenny is more advanced than a Burke, since it costs several $100mllns less. Poor countries could also buy more Sovremennies than Burkes then. But I don’t think that makes a Sovremenny more advanced than a Burke… (as I’m sure you will agree).
SeverodvinskAh, I see, yes plane= aircraft…
But then, your ship has to be capable of taking an ESM bearing at 160km, is that possible? Don’t have a clue about that, we don’t use that in Merchie. We use a different system, for positioning, also receiving signals from a shore-based sender, yet we’ve thrown it overboard in the Indian Ocean, we never came close enough to shore to receive any of that, so I doubt the ranges of such things…
Yes the plane could do such things, yet that plane will probably get detected.
Not many navies can afford P-700, but the ones that do, will have to build ships with a depth of about 10m, meaning you’ll have a huge freeboard, or some draft, with such draft you’ll have to build a big ship… Big ship with lots of SAM possibilities. You might try to take out the launch platforms, but with what? Your Harpoon shippies? Go ahead and give it a try…
For me the most advanced SSM is the missile that can do the job, be it a frigate, corvette or carrier. A Harpoon or NSM can’t simply sink a carrier, P-700 might. Of course in my definition, the price and difficulty of the system isn’t taken in account. But I suppose that’s a matter of comprehension, what is “most advanced”? according to you it’s something different and I can of course live with that.
SeverodvinskOld submarine of the Shark/S-class. Served in WWII.
Severodvinskhmm ASW screen is mostly provided by the Udaloys, also,the Kirovs themselves have a VDS and bowmounted sonar and of course three helicopters of which two are dedicated ASW helos. It’s ten torpedo tubes also allow it to use SS-N-15 and SS-N-16 anti-sub rocket-torpedoes and of course regular 533mm torps.
SeverodvinskHmm, the huge size of Granit makes you build a huge launcher for it. Mostly these huge launchers have a huge spare space and buoyancy, hence more SAMs. If you look at the surface ships that fire Granit, they all have more than 300 SAMs and several guidance radars for all that…
SeverodvinskSorry, Jonesy, Weren’t clear on this one I suppose. I wasn’t talking about the target MOVING from A to B or C, I were talking about your bearing… The ESM bearing you said, is just a bearing, no range. Or does it give range too? I’m not sure, things move quickly. But if it isn’t, then I suppose, with the drawing I wanted to show a bearing, without range, hence your target, seen from your plane, could be in A, B or C. If you give the launch information to your ship, that wouldn’t still allow your ship to shoot then, since it doesn’ t know to shoot to A, B or C….
So, no motion was taken in account there. As for motion, in my example this might give you the advantage, or disadvantage, Moving away or towards your missile, or neutrally perpendicular to your missile’s heading.
Severodvinskn
Well, Steve, here’s your bearing, where are you going to send your Missile? If you only have bearing, which I think is what Garry also means, you don’t have range. Are you going to send your missile to A? B? What if you ship is in C? If your missile arrives in A, I suppose it won’t see a target in C anymore would it? Or is it that broad-angled seeker?
Or is your missile, sent on the track to A, going to bend towards C if it detects a target there? Wouldn’t that make it a very unreliable missile if your target is in A(IR protection) and a fishing trawler (no IR protection)is in C?
Since you were talking about the bending over the horizon. Don’t you think that those same, non-perfect atmospheric conditions you talked about, wouldn’t disturb that in certain circumstances?
And yes, Russian weapons are prone to failures, but so are US weapons. You seem to think those SM-2, ESSM, RAM etc. are 100% proof, why develop ANY anti-ship missile then? Then I suppose NSM will be as easily intercepted too…
And I agree, when you have more external, off-board targetting support, you have more chances to failure or defect. And it’s more expensive, but if those systems allow you to avoid developping a $100blln fleet, I suppose it’s ok and maybe even cheaper.
Severodvinskhmm, did they ever have 24 of these built? I supposed they only had like 4 Su-25UTGs. Anyone has the total number of these craft built?
SeverodvinskYes, the off-board targetting is completely different, but what did you say, NSM doesn’t really need any MPA coming there? Not true if you ask me, we both know that the surface ship’s surfaceradar will only go as far as 20-30miles, that wouldn’t allow you to use that NSM very good would it? If your enemy then is a Kirov with his targetting helicopter up, I’d like the result of your engagement… ESM bearing will not give you any good coordinates, you can be miles off, miles that the missile can’t travel or miles that the missile might be going wrong…
So,the MPA or “accidentely” passing plane or helo IS necessary to use the NSM in an accurate way. Not till the last phase as the Legenda/Uspekh system, yet still necessary.
Stefan, I don’t think we’ll ever know how it really works. We have a grasp of it, but the details… The only thing I got loose from a Russian was: “nothing about this system on the net is wrong”. Nothing more, nothing less.
SeverodvinskNot even with AIP. That also needs fuel. The AIP just allows you to stay submerged longer, not to have a range near the Nuclear sub’s range.
Sign In
