The End of the Russian Arms industry

[Serb]

Originally posted by panag
and things dont get pulled out of ass around here

Yeah, right.

[David Floyd]

And who said that Kirov would attack American battle group alone?

It's not as if you have much to attack with - not even any Kirov's right now, for that matter.

We are more then able to defend our coast.

Unless the US Navy came a-knocking

[David Floyd]

And I spend 5 years in university studying Russian railroads and later worked for railroad department. Who the hell are you to lectuering me about Russian railroads?

Oh, good. Then you of all people should be aware of how US Lend Lease with regards to rolling stock/locomotives/track shipments provided immeasurable and vital assistance to the Soviet rail network, which, on its own, probably would have been ****ed from overuse

Sorry, had to throw that in there

[Serb]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

now that is a big fat piece that is lied , ......

here are the facts ;


On the eve of the Yom Kippur War, ...blah...blah...blah...

so , where is that cruiser , ....

facts cant be changed , ......

bye

It's rusting underwater of course.
Israeils warship "Eilat" destroyed by two Russian missile boats of "Komar" class at October 21 1967. Eilat entered territorial waters of Egypt and after four missile hits ship sunk. In accordance with Russian classification, it was "Eskadrenny minonosez or Esminez". In accordance with western classification...actually I made a mistake, it was lesser then cruiser.
Armament of "Eilat" four 114mm guns, six anti-aircraft guns, mines, torpedoes.
Armament of Komar class: two P-15 missiles.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Maybe not where you are now... but do enjoy your forthcoming holiday Serb.

The one in Chechnya, remember?

Send us a postcard.

My, that was prophetic.

[David Floyd]

Serb, why would it surprise you that a destroyer built in 1943 was sunk by missile boats? After all, missiles didn't even EXIST in 1943 (except in VERY primitive forms), and weren't a concern. The armament of the Eilat, as you mentioned, didn't even include anti-missile defenses (no, AA guns aren't missile defenses ).

[Serb]

It was build by British in 1944, "Z" class (or it is "zet"?). In 1944 Germans already have primitive missiles. Still, it was 2500 tonns destroyer with a lot of heavy armament and it was destroyed by two tiny boats whose only armaments were two Russian missiles.
Give me a hour. I don't have time now.

[David Floyd]

In 1944 Germans already have primitive missiles.

But not primitive anti-ship missiles. Yes, they did have radio controlled bombs, such as the one that sunk the Italian battleship Roma, but that is not the same thing. There were also primitive SAMs and AAMs.

The Eilat was originally laid down on May 5, 1943, and launched on Feb 28, 1944, so upon review, we are both sorta right. It was indeed a former Z class destroyer, the HMS Zealous.

But no matter what it was, it was not designed to fight anti-ship missiles, and certainly not anti-ship missiles with late 1960s technology. Hence, no matter what equipment was carried on it, it's no surprise that it was sunk.

If you take the Yamato or the Bismarck, and put them up against a missile armed craft, and the battleship is sunk by the missile boat, it doesn't mean that the nation that built the missile boat has superior technology, it just means that the technology of the time is superior to the technology of the early 1940s.

[Serb]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

okay GP , you are the one who can confirm this , what do you say about one , maybe two harpoons launched from a sub , ..... would that not sink a 25 000 weight cruiser that has nearly 40 of its waterproof inerpanels take out during last " update ", ..... not to mention the entire weight concept is also unbalanced , ......

Now I know this for sure- Israelis education system completely sucks.
Tell me, do you have a course of theoretic physic in school where are you studdying? I think not. Not only you have no idea about EMP, but also you have no idea about mechanics as well. If you'll remove inner panels out of such huge ship as Kirov, the ship will colapse due its own weight.

[David Floyd]

If you'll remove inner panels out of such huge ship as Kirov

The Kirov is by no means "huge"

[Serb]

Originally posted by GP


Harpoons are not the weapon of choice for alrge targets. It might absorb more Harpoons than you expect. (Although, Russian damage control is ****tier than our I expect.) The ship is pretty massive.

****tier, my ass.
IIRC, (not really sure, have to check the book) major systems of Kirov reserved four times instead of usual two.

A submarine would use a torpedo to attack it. (basically not that different from how ww2 attacks were done.) One torp would almost certainly be be enough. Because of how they explode under the keel.

Yeah, right.
And what is the max range of your best torpedo?
As long as your sub will aproach Kirov closer than 45 km. Kirov's "Vodopad" ('Waterfall') complex will start to work and destroy your sub. Even if your sub will be able to launch its torpedoes, Kirov will create a "wall" of mines (thanks to its unique mine launchers) with noise sensors that will destroy incoming torpedoes.
Why you just can't admit that this ship is the masterpeice of engineering, extremly hard target and the most powerfull surface ship on Earth?

[David Floyd]

Kirov's "Vodopad" ('Waterfall') complex will start to work and destroy your sub.

Well holy ****, now the Kirov is an ASW warship too

As to "creating a wall of mines", I assume you are referring to the Udav-1 and RBU-1000 systems?

The Pyotr Veliky cruiser's antisubmarine system comprises: sophisticated sonar equipment with an underkeel antenna (in bulbous fairing) and towed antenna of automated sonar system; versatile system of missile-torpedo armament, including 533mm launchers (five on either side) housed in the cruiser's hull and capable of delivering fire via side ports; RBU-1200 ten-barrelled launcher and two RBU-1000 six-barrelled launchers. The cruiser has space for two Ka-27 antisubmarine helicopters stowed in an underdeck hangar, magazine for aircraft ammunition load, lift and helicopter pad for takeoff and landing.

Sounds nice enough, but I don't see why you would think this makes the ship impervious to torpedos.

[David Floyd]

Further, that might work very nice in trials, but I rather suspect a surprise attack with a spread of 4 torpedos from only a few km away would be a little different. Combat always is.

[Serb]

Originally posted by panag
and btw , read again about the ammo on the M-16 , .....

Why should I read your crap like- " M-16 don't use 5.56 ammo, it use Remington ammo instead" again?

and where is it written that the kirov class are aircraft carriers , before you post stupid insults , please read before you post and mix things up yourself , .....

Your post on page five of this thread:
hi ,

huh , the kirov holds how many planes , .....

a us large carrier holds how many , ..... a difference of 50+ aircraft , .....

Do you need a link or you are able to find it by yourself?


It could mean only two things:
1) You have no idea how many planes holds large American air carrier. If you think that difference between large US aircraft carrier and Russian battlecruiser is 50 aircrafts. (This is less likely)
2) You thought that Kirov is Russian air carrier. (This is more likely.)

In any case it means that you are an who engage in debates about subject you know nothing about.

Have a nice day.

[David Floyd]

He was making the point that air power is a vital element in naval combat, and that Nimitz-class carriers provide dozens of aircraft, while the Kirov class provides none.