The End of the Russian Arms industry

[Serb]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It destroyred Russia with the American ICBMs.

Unfortunately.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That's simply an example of technology winning. Of course the Egyptians sunk a destroyer built in 1943 and 1944 with a missile. If they didn't, they'd be totally incompetent.

Before the death of Eilat no one in western navies considered tiny missile boats as serious threat to large surface ships of main classes. And it was your western aproach, not only Israelis aproach. Poor anti-aircraft defences was part of this aproach, because no one believed in deadly effectivness of anti-ship missiles yet. You said that Israelis kicked everyone's asses using American warfighting methods and equipment. Eilat was peice of western equipment and its crew used western warfighting methods. The ship is dead now. Read Azazel's article. It's a good reading.

Wrong. The USN is a blue-water navy, not a brown-water navy, and just because Egyptian missile boats sunk a 25 year old destroyer doesn't mean that's going to change.

From Azazel's article:
"After the successful attack that sank the Eilat, antiship missiles finally acquired a secure place (and due respect) in naval warfare. In spite of the views of certain experts, navies around the world embarked on rearmament with the new missile. A new kind of air threat had been created, and the character of naval warfare was radically changed forever. This is the result of that engagement on 21 October 1967."
I read almost the same in different source.

As to the US building hundreds of missile armed gunboats, huh? You perhaps mean the river gunboats of Vietnam? What use would the US have for small gunboats? It's not as if we need them for coastal defense, and they aren't useful in blue water operations.

I meant Jaguar, Pegasus, Swordfish and other boats that were created after Eilat's death. Before 1967 US navy didn't build missile boats.

[TCO]

WE have the blue ocean Navy. They have a coastal defense fleet. They're nobody.

Originally posted by Serb




Thanks for the lecture. Try something in our waters. We are more then able to defend our coast. Currently we don't need anything else.

It looks like we are in agreement. Read some Mahan before our next talk.

[Serb]

Not exactly.
I do agreed that you have blue water navy, while current Russian fleet is brown water navy. As for "they are nobody" part... never.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Serb
Not exactly.
I do agreed that you have blue water navy, while current Russian fleet is brown water navy. As for "they are nobody" part... never.

1. For a swaggering blue water guy, I say they are nobody. But guess you are right. It is a reasonable strategy to be defenisve. Not everybody can be a he-man, "sewers of Moscow", American submariner. Ready to go around for weeks with a gun pointed to someone's head who doesn't know it. Good thing you have the ARctic ice pack to hide your one at sea missile sub.

2. Kirov is a beautiful SWO-daddy warship. With the retirement of the US Battleships, it is the premier SWO-daddy type vessel. I agree that the aircraft carrier belongs in a different class. But it is no contest for even a very old US nuclear sub. Heck even a Victor 3 (Russian) could take a Kirov, I expect. The advantage is VERY, VERY much with the submarine in modern warfare.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GP


1. For a swaggering blue water guy, I say they are nobody.

But guess you are right. It is a reasonable strategy to be defenisve. Not everybody can be a he-man, "sewers of Moscow", American submariner. Ready to go around for weeks with a gun pointed to someone's head who doesn't know it. Good thing you have the ARctic ice pack to hide your one at sea missile sub.

Some Russian subs still somwhere nearby American coast "ready to go around for weeks with a gun pointed to someone's head who doesn't know it."

2. Kirov is a beautiful SWO-daddy warship. With the retirement of the US Battleships, it is the premier SWO-daddy type vessel. I agree that the aircraft carrier belongs in a different class. But it is no contest for even a very old US nuclear sub. Heck even a Victor 3 (Russian) could take a Kirov, I expect. The advantage is VERY, VERY much with the submarine in modern warfare.

Let's hope we will never see Kirov's anti-sub capabilities in action. It will be WW3 if will do.

[TCO]

Kirov isn't ****. I would take a 637 (with US crew) against any USSR ship. Would take a Victor3 (even with Russian crew) against a Kirov in a heartbeat.

Your best method of sub detection on a skimmer is watching the green flares in peactime or feeling the torpedo explosion in wartime. it is no contest.

I would take a US 594 against a US carrier battlegroup.

[Serb]

Your best method of sub detection on a skimmer is watching the green flares in peactime or feeling the torpedo explosion in wartime. it is no contest.

Yeah, right. Those silly Russkies equiuped their Kirov with sh!tloads of anti-sub equipment just to make their ship heavier, right?

[David Floyd]

Battlegroup again. I was talking about comparison of 1 ship vs. 1 ship. Without escort your carrier wouldn't stand long against Kirov.

Not if the Kirov got within missile range, no. However, seeing as how the two ships have nearly identical speeds (Hazegray lists the Kirov class with a max speed of 32 knots, and the Nimitz class with a max speed of 30+ knots), it would be very tough for the Kirov to close the gap, especially since the US would likely have better intel.

Now, let's look at the range. The primary anti-ship weapon of the Kirov class is the SS-N-19 Shipwreck. This missile has a maximum range of 625 km.

The main attack aircraft of the USN is the F/A-18, which has a maximum combat radius of a bit over 600 km. However, this range can be considerably extended by employing tanker aircraft, and the anti-ship missiles used by the Hornet don't have to be launched from right next to the enemy warship, either. Thus, the main strike weapon of the Nimitz considerably outranges the main strike weapon of the Kirov.

Further, the air wing of the Nimitz includes various other aircraft, including ELINT, AWACS, etc., whereas the Kirov class carries no aircraft at all. This means that even taking satellite coverage out of consideration, the USN will be able to maintain a considerable intel advantage over the Kirov - the Kirov can't effectively close the gap, and the Nimitz can maneuver and attack at will. The Kirov is, in effect, "fighting blind", at least compared to the Nimitz (obviously it can see the aircraft within a certain range).

Now, the debate would get into whether the air defenses of the Kirov could defeat an entire carrier air wing. And making that claim is pretty ludicrous, in my opinion. But you can't say that the Kirov could sink a Nimitz, because the Kirov can't even FIND the Nimitz, and even if it did, it couldn't close the distance enough to launch missiles.

Which US surface ship is better then Kirov? Ticonderoga class?

In terms of anti-ship capability? Probably none, other than a carrier or a submarine.

It will destroy with pretty high probability. It was designed to destroy such threats.

Sure, and the German V-weapons were designed to blast England into submission. Not everything works exactly as planned.

Where would you prefer to be, on board of US aircraft carrier when "intellegent swarm" of Russian 'shipwrecks' aproaching or to be on Kirov's board when American air wing or bunch of slow Tomahawks is aproaching?

Seeing as how the air wing can get to the Kirov, and the Kirov can't get within range to launch missiles at the Nimitz, I'll take my chances on board the carrier.

It's still in list of active ships, but currently under repair.

So, then, it isn't deployable, is it?

a) That's why we have mobile SSM and SAM battaries.
b) Blah...blah...blah... Save your tricks for countries without AA defese. Russia is not Yugoslavia or Iraq. Aside them, we will strike back and shoot down your planes.

This is irrelevant, because the US isn't stupid enough to risk ANY ships close in to the coast. A US blockade wouldn't hurt Russia that much, so why do it? We don't have enough ships for an effective one, anyway. But if the US wanted to attack the Russian coast at any given point, it wouldn't be tough - just mass 4-5 carriers along with a few attack subs. Start things off with standoff missiles launched from B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s, then surface the subs and launch missiles, then send in 5 carrier air wings to clean up. Hell, the US could even land a Marine Amphibious Unit if we really wanted to.

Nope, US will be in trouble. We'll simply nuke you in this case. That's what our doctrine says.

I thought we were throwing out nukes? And in any case, I don't care what your doctrine says, you aren't going to start a nuclear war unless someone else starts one first, or maybe you're about to be conquered.

You said that Israelis kicked everyone's asses using American warfighting methods and equipment. Eilat was peice of western equipment and its crew used western warfighting methods. The ship is dead now.

Yes, yes, but as has been pointed out, the Israelis decisively won the naval war, and as I have pointed out SEVERAL times, there is no reason to expect a destroyer built in the mid 1940s to be competitive in the late 1960s.

After the successful attack that sank the Eilat, antiship missiles finally acquired a secure place (and due respect) in naval warfare. In spite of the views of certain experts, navies around the world embarked on rearmament with the new missile. A new kind of air threat had been created, and the character of naval warfare was radically changed forever. This is the result of that engagement on 21 October 1967

Oh, sure, you're absolutely right that the US began to seriously improve anti-missile defenses, but this doesn't mean that overall US naval doctrine was changed - that is, we never moved away from the idea of projecting power with large aircraft carriers.

I meant Jaguar, Pegasus, Swordfish and other boats that were created after Eilat's death. Before 1967 US navy didn't build missile boats.

These boats were built for US coastal waters, not blue water offensive operations. The Pegasus is today used for drug interdiction. This has nothing to do with US naval doctrine, at least not significantly - you don't see these things deploying with CVBGs, after all.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Serb

Yeah, right. Those silly Russkies equiuped their Kirov with sh!tloads of anti-sub equipment just to make their ship heavier, right?

You don't know ****. ASW is a nightmare from the skimmer side. They rejoice when they even detect a sub once. We spend eons watching them throught the crosshairs while dancing with the one-eyed lady.

[Serb]

Watching whom? I doubt you watched Petr Veliky through the crosshairs.

[TCO]

I would take a Russian Victor 3 against a Kirov and would take a US 637 against an entire US battlegroup.

You have no clue how much the sub has the advantage.

[Serb]

Actually I have.
I just want to hear some of your navy stories. Come on, tell me which Soviet ship you watched through crosshair? Please...

[TCO]

I won't discuss that sort of thing. It is incredibly sensative. Just realize that the US ships were VERY aggressive in mindset compared to the Sovs. And that (even taking US versus Sov out of the equation) subs kick ass on skimmers.

[David Floyd]

Didn't US subs occasionally take hull shots (photos) of Soviet subs, and (much less frequently), vice versa?