Russia to send warships, planes to Venezuela

[David Floyd]

Kid,

Submarine are able to launch undetected attacks. Torpedos are actually not the best method for taking down surface ships these days, but in the case of a Kirov, it might be the best option.

Carriers have the ability to launch strike groups that can swarm missile defense - you can only launch so many SAMs at once, so the trick is to overwhelm the missile defense with too many missiles. A 24-plane strike package can launch many more missiles in much less time than the escorting destroyers in a carrier's battlegroup.

Also, and just as importantly, the USN really doesn't focus on surface combatants - it focuses on carriers, submarine, and anti-aircraft escort ships. Our Ticonderoga class cruisers - the only cruiser hull currently active in the USN - are basically anti-aircraft ships and nothing more. Some of our destroyers do have anti-ship capability, but we don't have anything on the level of a Kirov.

[Heresson]

Good, while their airplanes and warships are in Venesuela, Teh United Europe attacks them and destroy'em!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Kid,

Submarine are able to launch undetected attacks. Torpedos are actually not the best method for taking down surface ships these days, but in the case of a Kirov, it might be the best option.

Carriers have the ability to launch strike groups that can swarm missile defense - you can only launch so many SAMs at once, so the trick is to overwhelm the missile defense with too many missiles. A 24-plane strike package can launch many more missiles in much less time than the escorting destroyers in a carrier's battlegroup.

Also, and just as importantly, the USN really doesn't focus on surface combatants - it focuses on carriers, submarine, and anti-aircraft escort ships. Our Ticonderoga class cruisers - the only cruiser hull currently active in the USN - are basically anti-aircraft ships and nothing more. Some of our destroyers do have anti-ship capability, but we don't have anything on the level of a Kirov.

They're not really that impressive then since ships battle in groups.

[David Floyd]

Actually no one really knows what a modern naval war would look like. The US wants to rely on carrier aircraft and advanced submarines to win the day, while the Soviets/Russians have always relied on mass numbers of cheap submarines and large, missile-heavy surface combatants. I tend to think that the US approach is superior, but then again, I wouldn't want to be a CVBG commander and have to tangle with taking down a fully functional Kirov, either. I might do it, but I'd probably wreck my air group in the process.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Our Ticonderoga class cruisers - the only cruiser hull currently active in the USN - are basically anti-aircraft ships and nothing more. Some of our destroyers do have anti-ship capability, but we don't have anything on the level of a Kirov.

(1)The CG47s are built on destroyer hulls, not cruiser hulls.
(2)"AA ships and nothing more"...sure thing buddy. They can carry more missiles than a DDG, typically have better signals collection gear, typically have better ECM gear, and have 2 guns as opposed to one. CGs tend to have better anti-ship capabilities just for that reason alone.

Now, we don't have those supersonic superwhizbang missiles that the russkis have...but by and large I think we would be more likely to intercept the missiles and/or bomb the Russian ships before they got within range.

[David Floyd]

(1)The CG47s are built on destroyer hulls, not cruiser hulls.

My bad, forgot about that. Still, they are classified as cruisers.

(2)"AA ships and nothing more"...sure thing buddy. They can carry more missiles than a DDG, typically have better signals collection gear, typically have better ECM gear, and have 2 guns as opposed to one. CGs tend to have better anti-ship capabilities just for that reason alone.

Well, isn't their better signals gear due to the fact that they generally comprise the primary line of missile defense for a CVBG? As for guns, those aren't relevent in modern naval warfare, and as for anti-ship capabilities, I suppose they do have it, but you don't typically see a Tico being utilized in that role, and either way, a Tico is still much < a Kirov when it comes to anti-ship capability.

Now, we don't have those supersonic superwhizbang missiles that the russkis have...but by and large I think we would be more likely to intercept the missiles and/or bomb the Russian ships before they got within range.

Well, I don't think we know the full capability of the Russian missiles, and yes, I agree that an air group could take down a Kirov, but it wouldn't probably eat a chunk of the air group in it's way down, too. And what good's a carrier with a broke air group?

[PLATO]

Sub launched cruise missles = no more Kirov. I doubt the Kirov could find a Seawolf or even a 688 if it drove over the top of it. I would imagine that the USN is already smiling at the opportunity of running drills on the Peter The Great as she sails over here.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I wouldn't want to be a CVBG commander and have to tangle with taking down a fully functional Kirov, either. I might do it, but I'd probably wreck my air group in the process.

Now you're definitely exagerating. I don't see any reason to think that they are that difficult to take out. It's just a ship.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well, isn't their better signals gear due to the fact that they generally comprise the primary line of missile defense for a CVBG?

Signals as in SIGINT.

As for guns, those aren't relevent in modern naval warfare,

Yeah okay buddy. We train to use guns on small craft all the time, after all, it makes more sense to send a couple thousand dollar shell(if that) downrange than a couple ten thousand(if not hundred thousand) missile.

Not counting shore bombardment, which we do on a fairly regular basis.

and as for anti-ship capabilities, I suppose they do have it, but you don't typically see a Tico being utilized in that role,

But they are more capable in that setting than a DDG.

and either way, a Tico is still much < a Kirov when it comes to anti-ship capability.

I agree.

Well, I don't think we know the full capability of the Russian missiles,

Without getting to the point where the NCIS knocks on my door we(that is, navy EW types)(now CT types) have a fairly high degree of confidence in stopping Russki missiles just from ECM...not counting CIWS, SM-3s, SM-2ERs...

and yes, I agree that an air group could take down a Kirov, but it wouldn't probably eat a chunk of the air group in it's way down, too. And what good's a carrier with a broke air group?

When was the last time an enemy vessel shot down a USN airplane?

I mean, most of the scenarios I think of versus a Kirov end up with the Kirov sunk, with minimal damage to our side. If the Georgians are to be believed, they managed to inflict heavy damage on the Moskva, and I wouldn't put the Georgian navy in the same league as the USN.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by PLATO
Sub launched cruise missles = no more Kirov. I doubt the Kirov could find a Seawolf or even a 688 if it drove over the top of it. I would imagine that the USN is already smiling at the opportunity of running drills on the Peter The Great as she sails over here.

We don't have TSAMs anymore.

[David Floyd]

Yeah okay buddy. We train to use guns on small craft all the time, after all, it makes more sense to send a couple thousand dollar shell(if that) downrange than a couple ten thousand(if not hundred thousand) missile.

Not counting shore bombardment, which we do on a fairly regular basis.

Right, but my point was in a naval engagement against the Russians, Chinese, or a similar navy - or, for that matter, against any frigate-sized ship and larger - I just can't see guns being an issue.

Without getting to the point where the NCIS knocks on my door we(that is, navy EW types)(now CT types) have a fairly high degree of confidence in stopping Russki missiles just from ECM...not counting CIWS, SM-3s, SM-2ERs...

Fair enough.

When was the last time an enemy vessel shot down a USN airplane?

I mean, most of the scenarios I think of versus a Kirov end up with the Kirov sunk, with minimal damage to our side. If the Georgians are to be believed, they managed to inflict heavy damage on the Moskva, and I wouldn't put the Georgian navy in the same league as the USN.

Well, careful with the hubris - we did lose an F-117 over Yugoslavia. And I agree that a Kirov probably couldn't take out a US carrier, unless the Kirov was very lucky AND the carrier was very dumb. I'm just saying it would be a handful for a carrier to deal with, at least according to what I have heard. I'm certainly not the expert, though.

And no, I don't think the Georgians are really that trustworthy when it comes to press releases about enemy damage assessments.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I don't think we know the full capability of the Russian missiles, and yes, I agree that an air group could take down a Kirov, but it wouldn't probably eat a chunk of the air group in it's way down, too. And what good's a carrier with a broke air group?

Oh so it's some kind of super anti ship and super anti aircraft ship eh? I don't think so. Where do you get this from?

[David Floyd]

It's certainly designed to be. If someone actually knowledgeable on the subject, such as Lonestar, tells me this isn't the case, I'd be inclined to rethink my opinion. My originally point, if you care to scroll up, is that ON PAPER, the Kirov is impressive.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It's certainly designed to be. If someone actually knowledgeable on the subject, such as Lonestar, tells me this isn't the case, I'd be inclined to rethink my opinion. My originally point, if you care to scroll up, is that ON PAPER, the Kirov is impressive.

The way I see it a surface ship is only going to be so good. It only has enough space for so many guns to opperate efficiently. That is, unless of course it has some superior technological advantage. I heard that they have good missiles but the US definitely has good missiles also.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh so it's some kind of super anti ship and super anti aircraft ship eh? I don't think so. Where do you get this from?

He's correct in the intent of the ship. That said, when you are down to two functional hulls, one must wonder what the material condition of them are.

The Russian Navy has gone through such a long period of time without new units added to it in numbers that eventually they'll have to start from scratch.