echonineRolly eyes is right. You sound like the stereotype “internet toughguy” LOL!
Yeah, they say lots of things. 😉
Yeah and I’m sure the Mig-31 fleet is in the air, fully armed, 24/7. :rolleyes:
It’s in the air when it needs to be.
And the Americans talk as much as the Russians, so their ABM system is a joke too. 😉
Take your invincible America talk to the people who thought it was the US state “Georgia” that was invaded . . .
echonineActually they’ve only *talked* about it (and blowing smoke takes no talent). They’ve yet to deploy a demonstrated capability to do so.
Again, saying “this is suppose too. . .” is not the same as saying “it does”.
Because they’re usually playing catch up. 😉
When the SS-27, RS-24, or Bulava penetrate any kind of US defenses, I can promise you, you won’t be around to know about it. :rolleyes:
The Russians have said they are developing these systems, and this is going off topic now, so drop it.
Right, right – as if the MiG-31 was never tested against similar Russian missiles. . . I didn’t know the AGM-86 was special. :rolleyes:
echonineYes because Popular mechanics and John Pike are well known for thier ‘nonsense’ articles :rolleyes: Personally I think Mr Pike is more then likly far far more qualified to speak on the subject then anyone here http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/staff/pike.htm, Jelous much?
There are no T-80s of any kind in the 58th army . . .
Nanuchkas in the Black Sea Fleet? Sure, but it’s a Moskva (a Slava cruiser) and Smetlivy (a Kashin heavy mod) destroyer out there, no Russian Nanuchkas. . .
Tu-160s attacking Tbilisi?
The Bolsheviks return?
A blue moon outside?
echonineEcho,
This is getting a bit tedious for all concerned now. You’ve gone on record here stating that all manner of assets are available for targetting and identifying ships from the captains of tramp steamers to James Bond yet you have been able to support none of them when questioned. You havent indicated a single asset capable of providing surviveable targetting nor evidence of a successful coordinated strike on a CVBG/CVSG that was attempting evasion…not one by the Soviets, Russians or Chinese. Yet I’m in dreamland?.
This is getting outrageous. If there is one lesson that the MC02 exercise, you cite so readily, taught its that leaving an opponents offensive infrastructure intact if you are planning to close his coast isnt very clever. Realistically this isnt a huge revelation in military thought as people have been reducing coastal defences, of one type or another, going back to the days of muzzle-loading cannon and square rigs!.
First principle of modern military doctrine is the manoeuver to gain optimal positioning for the employment of your weapons whilst minimising your vulnerability to threat systems. If that sees the USN salvoing TLAM 500km offshore they would have little compunction about it. Ask anyone living on the Falklands in 1982 if sneak attacks are still a feature of modern combat!.
…and thats the last straw. You know nothing of what you are talking about, seemingly arent interested in actually learning the history of the weapons systems you so revere, and their many shortcomings, and ascribe knowledge of these inherent flaws as western naval fantasy?.
This is is obviously pointless and I’ll waste no more effort on you. I will leave you with one last ‘exercise for the student’ though. Look up the number of OTH antiship missiles that have actually been fired – starting with the Eilat sinking in 67 – then find the number that actually hit their intended target. The answer might teach you something!
Bla bla bla. . . :rolleyes: 1967? It’s 2008. . . The AS-6 might be a little newer than the Styx used to sink Eilat, but the newer C-802 is certainly not 50-60 years old!
What systems are you talking about again? Survivability? A relative position will do, again, carrier groups don’t travel around at Mach 1.
The Chinese use active-radar guided missiles on all their platforms. Guidance here is self explanatory. This includes their own missiles, and the older Soviet ones that they used on Badgers.
The Uspekh system was designed for the Tu-95RT/SS-N-3b missiles to name a few . . why in the name of whoever is this even being brought up?
The SS-N-12/19 can be satellite guided, and could be guided with aerial platforms, presumably the Tu-142 if need be, or helos! Yet this is irrelevant to a Chinese thread!
echonineCould you enlighten us with some examples of this theory of ‘counter warfare’ ? :confused:
Americans build carriers are lots of ships, the Russians built unique anti-ship missiles.
The US innovates with the F-15/16 aircraft, and here come the MiG-29 and Su-27.
The US starts messing with ABM systems, and the Russians start developing ICBMs that can penetrate these defenses.
With the cruise missile threat increasing, the MiG-31 is designed to counter it.
ETC.
Not that America hasn’t played this too, but it’s usually the Russians going at it.
echonineWhat the hell is that nonsense article? ROFL. 😀
echonine“Suppose to” and “can” are two different things.
The ABMs in Europe are just that- ABMs. You wouldn’t waste them on something as trivial as an Iskander. That would be for PAC-3 & THAAD.
The Russians do a great job of counter-warfare.
The Americans make something, they make something to counter it. It’s been like that for the last 60 years.
echonineActually they look like T-62’s. The “frying pan” turret is a dead giveaway. The T-64 looks more line the T-72 with a different suspension package. T-62’s were definitely “Category B” kit that has not been seen in front line Russian units since the 1980’s.
I’m going to take a stab at it, and say, they are SO / Abkhazian units?
echonineRussia Confirmed Use of Precision Weapons in South Ossetia
Military command of the RF has confirmed the use of precision weapons against Georgia. General Staff Deputy Chief General-Colonel Anatoly Nogovitsyn made the respective statement, Interfax reported.
Russia “has in inventory the weapons allowing to hit only the facilities threatening our troops instead of fighting by carpet bombing… We are doing exactly this now,” the general said without naming the weapons.The precision weapons are the guided weapons able to hit the aim by a short (launch). The group contains ground and air missile systems as well as the bombing and artillery systems of guided weapons.
Russia probably used KAB-500L adjustable air bombs (laser guidance) carried by Su-25 warplanes in the military operation against Georgia. The bombs benefit from the powerful combat component of an ordinary bomb coupled with the precision of air-to-ground guided missile. The probable circular deflection from the target doesn’t exceed 10 meters.
The Su-25 has a laser weapons designator, and the Su-24 should have the ability to use both TV and laser weapons, even in their most common variant in service.
echonineYou have to rememeber ABM systems are not there to shoot down every single missile, but rather they are about causing massive headaches to the guys who plan the nuclear strikes. i will try and find a relevent ‘paper’ about it later if you bear with me.
For the purposes of going nuclear, the Russians have far more options, the Iskaner-M complex is designed to be a hard hitting long ranged conventional weapon from what I gather.
echonineDoes it have to be ‘always true’ for the point to be valid?. No, of course not?. Is there any fundamental difference between an RAF aircraft searching for and identifying ship targets in the Atlantic and a Chinese MPA searching for and identifying targets in the South China Sea?. No there isnt – the challenges presented to both are identical. Ergo problems experienced by one service can be anticipated to strike another who’s equipment and methodology are no better. In fact we know this to be the case as several air forces have experienced the same issues with OTH target misidentification over the decades.
Fact is, you live in a dream world. On Earth, nations don’t sneak attack on other nations, well, not anymore at least – in terms of the nations we are talking about here. Any escalation would be well prepared for.
The key flaw with what you write is the part where you talk about recon and shooter assets. China, as we speak, has no surviveable recon assets that could bear on a USN carrier force and survive long enough to coordinate a strike. You cant use shooter assets to do the patrolling either because you spread them too thinly and wipe out the chance of a weighted strike.
These assets have been discussed repeatedly.
I think I’m actually quite flattered you have stuck to the unfathomable notion that this is all my analysis and not the product of years of study in uniform and out – learning from people with infinitely more knowledge than myself.
Right, so if it’s not you, they must be right. Unless you are an ex-Soviet Navy captain, or in the Russian military, which you are not, your / their insights aren’t as valuable as you may think.
If all you are going to do from this point is say that they built the system so it must work we’ll forget it right now because you really are showing yourself to have no clue as to how much you dont actually know. I’ll give you a hint as to where to start off finding out the real story about OTH missile engagements of carrier battlegroups….study the genesis of Soviet anticarrier tactics. Start somewhere near the P-7/35, Uspekh, Echo-class SSGN’s and the Pr.58 RK’s. You’ll get to the P-700’s on Kirov and the Oscar SSGN’s, but, you’ll notice a disconnect in about the mid 80’s when things start going a bit wrong for the whole concept.
Yeah, the USSR’s OTH capability fell apart in the 80’s, this is great, you should write a book about it.
You pick out what it was that goes wrong for the system and you get a gold star!!!.
What you (or these people you are trying to push this knowledge of yours to) think goes wrong you mean :rolleyes:
OK Antiship basics. The terminology is divorcing the shooter from the recon element. This means that the recon platform is a seperate entity to the shooter. This is the optimal choice as it means that your search asset is not hauling around heavy antiship missiles whilst patrolling. This obviously has the benefits of increased range and endurance for the aircraft and increased missile life as they dont tend to like being clobbered on a pylon in turbulence etc for 12hrs!.
I don’t even know what you are saying here, or who you are talking to. Payload / range / aircraft will all differ according to mission, situation, which airfield they are based on etc.
If you dont hold an identified target for the missile how are you going to fire it in the first place?. Just send off a salvo of 4 missiles on all cardinal points…see if something finds a carrier…or at least a carrier sized ship?.
There is something called inertial guidance, which works great last I checked, after you’ve found the relative area of an enemy task force. Carriers don’t fly around at Mach 1 do they? :rolleyes:
Hmmm first thing you’ve said I can relate to. I have a Milparade-fan, a person without the first concept of naval manoever or antiship OTH tactics, telling me that everything I was taught about both topics is wrong and with absolutely nothing to back up his assertions other than a highly contrived exercise 6 years back and a deeply flawed belief in ‘superior’ Soviet antiship missile technology!. Civil….you dont know your born lad!
Yes, civil. You are suggesting that whoever taught you knows more about Russian/Soviet weapons than they themselves do. The SS-N-19 was completely secretive till recently. The Russians/Soviets do a GREAT job of NOT giving up their capabilities, and making people like you keep guessing of what they could really do. 😀
echonineNow, regardless about the other consequences, such as more NATO members, Russia refusing to sell oil to Europe, or anything else we can think up, I wonder if their use of SS-21s with apparent success will lead to more support in Europe and NATO for the missile defense project? It’s overkill for an SRBM like an SS-21, but it is an interesting thought to ponder.
What would be the point?
Isn’t the Iskander-M already designed to defeat some form of ABM systems?
If the ABM system plan for Europe (or some form/extension of it) goes live, the Russians could just cook up the Iskander-M2 or something along those lines – you know what I mean?
This is a good opportunity for Obama to make a distinction between cowboy diplomacy and America’s new, productive, engaging diplomacy under his leadership.
I agree here, and disagree with SOC.
Bush’s administration have essentially wrecked everything that Clinton built up.
McCain’s deep rooted hate for the Russians, probably from being in Vietnam, is going to get American NO WHERE, especially on Iran.
Obama is America’s last hope to regain some credibility on the international front.
echonineThe bad side was not the footage itself (and pilots, designers and so on), the bad side was work done by the creators of the program, “information” and other stuff they speak as a background.
They clued the viewers in on the few actual images of the aircraft, and mentioned some of its features – at least the ones that are not highly classified – like extreme automation, specified use of RAM, and named both of the aircraft’s future production facilities (though 1 only was clear before).
echoninefour years with no port? anyone got any guesses what they will do in the meantime, Russia won’t abandon its blacksea fleet will they so they will need to find another port i guess within the next month or so, vessels can’t stay afloat forever can they because of maintanence and refuueling and rearming etc etc.
Edited: Condellaza rice speaking soon about the situation
There is some form of a base in Novorossiysk, so if things go really South with the Ukraine, I’m sure they’ll take the ships back there.
echonineDo you like the way this broadcast was made, the product? I – don’t, and a lot of people also don’t like it.
It’s a freaking news program for crying out loud, what were you expecting, Steven Spielberg directing it???
Sign In
