The End of the Russian Arms industry

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman
oh yeah, you are against cultural relativism... i was gonna say maybe that is culturally correct for panag to do ""

Cultural relativism, my ass. This guy is just a ....[self-censored.]

Is it ok for me to post smile next time when some jerk will blow-up himself and nearby civilians somewhere in Izrael?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Propaganda
Damn ****ing right, Serb! Beat that Israeli's balls off!

Hey Prop, I will apreciate any help here.

[Serb]

Now it's your turn David.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Kirov class warship:

25,860-26,396 tons (fully loaded)

As opposed to this, the Kuznetsov class carrier, of which Russia has one in service, displaces 67,000 tons fully loaded.

However, both of these are dwarfed by the US Nimitz class carrier, which displaces 101,000-104,000 tons fully loaded.

Sorry, serb, you're wrong.

About what? Who was talking about air carriers? Carriers doesn't count. Janes says that Kirovs are currnetly the largest surface warships in service on this planet. I trust to Janes and it means that carriers doesn't count.

Actually a SSBN has far more firepower than any Kirov

I said surface ships and btw, Kirov's cruise missels can be armed with nuclear warheads.

But in any case, a Nimitz class carrier also carries more firepower, even excluding nuclear weapons. But if it comes down to it, the US can just load up aircraft with nuclear tipped cruise missiles - one hit would be enough, and the S-300 is good, but not THAT good.

1) US air carrier alone is very easy target (esp. for Kirov's missiles) and you perfectly know this.
2) If you brings nuclear weapons, I see no difference considering that Kirov's missles can carry nuclear warheads and one hit of such missile would be enough to destroy your battle group.
3) S-30 is amazingly good. And will destroy your missile or aircraft with probability above 0.9. Two hits- almost 100% probability and Kirov holds about hundred of S-300 missiles.

Why would a sub launch from 150 km away? I'd rather suspect that the sub would launch Harpoons from a few km away, inside the Kirov's protective screen. But in any case, why not just use torpedos?

See about 'waterfall' complex- it launch torpedo-missiles that travels underwater and in air. As soon as your sub within 45 km range, a waterfall of such munitions will start to fall and will destroy your sub.
Torpedoes could be destroyed by mine launchers.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


It's not as if you have much to attack with

A battle group could consist of Kirov a couple of cruisers, some subs and some destroyers and other smaller ships. A lots of coastal missile boats could be deadly also.

- not even any Kirov's right now, for that matter.

We have two operational and one in repair. Kaizergay sucks.

Unless the US Navy came a-knocking

Near our coast? When we will be under protection of our coastal battareis and will use our coastal aviation? Yep, you should try it.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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

[David Floyd]

About what? Who was talking about air carriers? Carriers doesn't count.

Carriers ARE surface warships.

I said surface ships and btw, Kirov's cruise missels can be armed with nuclear warheads.

Congratulations, but an Ohio or a Typhoon still has more firepower. Strategic nukes vs. tactical nukes. Hmmm.

1) US air carrier alone is very easy target (esp. for Kirov's missiles) and you perfectly know this.

Except that a carrier air wing outranges your missiles. Of course your missiles will take out a lone carrier - but the point of a carrier is to destroy a ship before it can even fire. But to be fair, we have to bring battlegroups into the equation, in any case.

3) S-30 is amazingly good. And will destroy your missile or aircraft with probability above 0.9. Two hits- almost 100% probability and Kirov holds about hundred of S-300 missiles.

Again, what is theoretically possible doesn't translate to 100% effective in battlefield conditions. Hell, strategic missile defense is theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean the test are successful. Further, just because you can shoot down drones with 90% effectiveness doesn't mean that you can target maneuvering aircraft protected by jamming with 90% effectiveness.

A battle group could consist of Kirov a couple of cruisers, some subs and some destroyers and other smaller ships.

Sure, if your definition of "battle group" is "entire operable Russian navy". Of course, that definition couldn't include any Kirov's, as none are operational right now.

We have two operational and one in repair.

Sorry, prior to the yard fire it was 1 deployable. Now it's none.

Near our coast? When we will be under protection of our coastal battareis

Coastal batteries? Right, the USN is worried about batteries of guns located along the Russian coast

and will use our coastal aviation?

You mean, the part you can find pilots for, and the part that is actually flyable? I'd be willing to bet that most of Russia's air force is grounded due to a)lack of personnel, b)lack of spare parts, and c)lack of money.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

Sure, but it still was a peice of western equipment and example of western aproach how to fight wars. You said that Israelis kicked everyone asses using US warfighting methods and equipment. I put this as example when your methods and aproach completely sucked in comparison with Russian aproach. After this case US leadership seriously re-considered its navy stategy. And USA start to build hundreds of such small missile boats. (they still sucked in comparison with their Soviet counterparts of course )
Btw, "Komar" class missile baot was created in 1956, not in late 60's.

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.

I doubt that modern missile can seriously hurt Yamato. Modern missiles are deadly for your modern "paper" frigates and cruisers, not for heavily armored WW2 battleships.

[David Floyd]

Sure, but it still was a peice of western equipment and example of western aproach how to fight wars. You said that Israelis kicked everyone asses using US warfighting methods and equipment. I put this as example when your methods and aproach completely sucked in comparison with Russian aproach.

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.

After this case US leadership seriously re-considered its navy stategy.

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.

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 doubt that modern missile can seriously hurt Yamato.

Take any example you want. Take a WW2 Russian submarine vs. a 2003 US submarine. Whatever.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Carriers ARE surface warships.

Still Janes claims that Kirovs are the largest surface ships. You should educate those guys.

Congratulations, but an Ohio or a Typhoon still has more firepower. Strategic nukes vs. tactical nukes. Hmmm.

We are talking about surface ships, remember?

Except that a carrier air wing outranges your missiles. Of course your missiles will take out a lone carrier - but the point of a carrier is to destroy a ship before it can even fire. But to be fair, we have to bring battlegroups into the equation, in any case.

What's the operational range of your air wing?
Anyhow Kirov have three stages of protection from air targets. Every hostile flying object within 150 km range will be destroyed. And Kirov have enough firepower do destroy attacking air wing launched from your carrier.

Again, what is theoretically possible doesn't translate to 100% effective in battlefield conditions. Hell, strategic missile defense is theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean the test are successful. Further, just because you can shoot down drones with 90% effectiveness doesn't mean that you can target maneuvering aircraft protected by jamming with 90% effectiveness.

Probability is more than 0.9 for maneuvering aircrafts protected by enemy's jamming systems. Check fas for info about S-300.

Sure, if your definition of "battle group" is "entire operable Russian navy". Of course, that definition couldn't include any Kirov's, as none are operational right now.

Very funny.

Sorry, prior to the yard fire it was 1 deployable. Now it's none.

No 'Admiral Nakhimov' anymore?

Coastal batteries? Right, the USN is worried about batteries of guns located along the Russian coast

Who said guns? Coastal SSM battaries.

You mean, the part you can find pilots for, and the part that is actually flyable? I'd be willing to bet that most of Russia's air force is grounded due to a)lack of personnel, b)lack of spare parts, and c)lack of money.

We still have enough to protect our coast from US carrier battlegroup.

[Serb]

It's lunch time. I'll be back.

Btw, what do you think about Terminator-3? I saw it last Friday. I don't know...T-2 was much better. What do you think?

[Kramerman]

i find the DF vs Serb exchanges very entertaining

Give it up Serb... the US OWNS YOU!!!!

[Saras]

If the current trend of Russian capital export continues and US continues to run a CA deficit, it's going to be vice versa sooner than you think. Dodgy Rooskies already own half the French Riviera.

[Az]

Originally posted by Serb


It's rusting underwater of course.
Israeils warship "Eilat" destroyed by two Russian missile boats of "Komar" class at October 21 1968. 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.

~destroyer, iirc.


Ahh, the biggest Arab naval victory, and the first use of Anti-ship missiles.

some good reading about it.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1997/autumn/s&d1-a97.htm

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
If the current trend of Russian capital export continues and US continues to run a CA deficit, it's going to be vice versa sooner than you think. Dodgy Rooskies already own half the French Riviera.

The governor of Yakutsk region and Russian tycoon Roman Abramovich bought Chelsey football club a couple of days ago. I guess Brits are happy now knowing that Russians own one of their famous football teams.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman

i find the DF vs Serb exchanges very entertaining

Give it up Serb... the US OWNS YOU!!!!

In your dreams.
Did you see terminator 3? Soon Russians will strike and eradicate your continent. Btw, the episode with American flag really sucked.