The End of the Russian Arms industry

[Serb]

Originally posted by GP
I won't discuss that sort of thing.

Damn, perhaps next time I'll be more lucky.

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.

Regardless of where it were manufactured, right? So you saying that subs kick ass on skimmers and I'm agreed. Are we happy now?
Could you provide a couple of examples from...hmmm....personal experience to make this claim even more valuable?

Kidding.

[Drake Tungsten]

Damn, perhaps next time I'll be more lucky.

If you really want to hear some sub stories, I can tell you a few doozies. I promise that they'll be just as truthful and accurate as your own posts.

[Serb]

Or as your Argentinian conspire theory?

[Drake Tungsten]

It was a Chilean conspiracy theory, IIRC.

[Serb]

Yeah, now I remember. It was a very truthful story.

[Drake Tungsten]

It was a very truthful story.

I take it you didn't get the joke.

[Serb]

Don't worry, I get.

[Serb]

And stop spaming in this highly intelectual Russia-bashing thread.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.
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.

David, we already had this debate long time ago and I guess we'll say nothing new to each other. So there is no point to continue.

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

Soon it will be.

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.

I guess 'Red storm rising' is your favorite book.

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.

In case of conventional invasion which will be a threat to our soverignety, we will use weapons of mass destruction. It's official doctrine.

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 never said that you abandoned this 'power projection idea'

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.

Again, I never said that those boats were build for CVBGs. I said that before Eilat's death US didn't build such boats, but after Eilat was destroyed US started to build such boats.

[David Floyd]

Soon it will be.

Yes, and "soon" the US will have hordes of F-22s, JSFs, the CVNX, new Strike Destroyers, Landwarrior, etc., etc., etc.

I guess 'Red storm rising' is your favorite book.

Irrelevant, but it is entertaining.

In case of conventional invasion which will be a threat to our soverignety, we will use weapons of mass destruction. It's official doctrine.

It was also NATO doctrine to contain a Soviet bridgehead with nuclear weapons in the event of an invasion of West Germany, but somehow I doubt that would have happened.

I said that before Eilat's death US didn't build such boats, but after Eilat was destroyed US started to build such boats.

That's fine, but we don't use them in our naval operations, and AFAIK, never have. They aren't blue water warships, and the USN is very much a blue water force.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GP

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

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

you keep mentioning Mahan.. but does that really still apply today? i mean, he did write that back when the US was an empire of sorts, and at the peak of european imperialism, where an ocean going fleet is definately vital (thus the success of the brittish, and not so much the french or the newly united germans)

[Panag]

Originally posted by Serb

On bow of this ship there is a huge painting: "PEYOTR VELIKY".
You still seems to do not understand. This ship is unique. It's one of a kind. I can't mess this ship with something else. It's simply impossible because it's the largest ship in Russian navy.
Read your own article, :
"An exception so far is Peter the Great which was commissioned recently, although the ship was under repairs one month after it was put to active service this spring.
Igor Kudrik
1998-11-03 "

read the dates and crono , .....

it still is in the docks , where it has been and shall stay for a while , thats a clear fact , ......

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kramerman


you keep mentioning Mahan.. but does that really still apply today? i mean, he did write that back when the US was an empire of sorts, and at the peak of european imperialism, where an ocean going fleet is definately vital (thus the success of the brittish, and not so much the french or the newly united germans)

There are arguments about how relevant Mahan is now (or ever was) but to discuss heresies intelligently, you first need knowledge of orthodoxy.

[Serb]

Originally posted by panag



read the dates and crono , .....

it still is in the docks , where it has been and shall stay for a while , thats a clear fact , ......

Do you speak English?
It says:
""An exception so far is Peter the Great which was commissioned recently, although the ship was under repairs one month after it was put to active service this spring. "

It means that ship WAS under repairs, not that it STILL under repairs.
I prefer believe to my own eyes, not to you. And I saw it with my own eyes on TV news. I saw this ship MANY TIMES during recent years while this ship was in open sea.

The rest is your bullsh!t.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yes, and "soon" the US will have hordes of F-22s, JSFs, the CVNX, new Strike Destroyers, Landwarrior, etc., etc., etc.

You forget to mention Doom Star.
Seriously speaking, I guess that repair is much easier proccess than building from scratch.

Irrelevant, but it is entertaining.

It's full of crap actually. A typical fairy tale.

That's fine, but we don't use them in our naval operations, and AFAIK, never have. They aren't blue water warships, and the USN is very much a blue water force.

Fine, it still doesn't change the fact that you use them in your navy and the fact that you started to build them only after Soviets demonstrated their deadly effectivnes. That's the only point I make.