Russia to send warships, planes to Venezuela

[Darius871]

Uh oh, time for another armchair-general military hardware stroke-a-thon! Who will take the lead?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lonestar


We don't have TSAMs anymore.

Oh that sucks!

When did we pull those and why?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar


He's correct in the intent of the ship.

I can see the intent to make a ship that is good at taking down both ships and aircraft but they had to make some sacrifices there. The USN could do the same thing, but if they wanted to make a ship particularly good at taking down aircraft for example they would have to sacrifice it's ability to take out ships.

[David Floyd]

I don't, in theory, see a reason why you couldn't build a ship with outstanding anti-air and anti-ship capability. It would probably just be really big. For example, if the US really wanted to, it could have done that with one of the Iowas before they were decommissioned. It would just be expensive and wouldn't make sense, as no one else has anything on the water that we would need a super-battleship to take down, and since Ticos work fine for anti-air, and we have CVNs for anti-ship, why waste the money?

[Kidlicious]

Oh it's bigger than most USN ships. I didn't realise. Sure then they could be a little better, but it comes down to everything in the battle.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by PLATO


Oh that sucks!

When did we pull those and why?

Airplanes are better anti-ship weapons for naval warfare than very longrange missiles.


And I think we pulled them in the '90s...ccertainly, we didn't have any by the time I joined uo in '02.

Oh it's bigger than most USN ships. I didn't realise. Sure then they could be a little better, but it comes down to everything in the battle.

It's much bigger than USN ships, but it doesn't have the weaponsload increase you would expect from a ship 3 times as big as a Bunker Hill class cruiser. Especially when a USN CG(or DDG) can swap our missiles in the same launcher and change the mix based upon the anticipated mission. Kirov's can't do that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar
It's much bigger than USN ships, but it doesn't have the weaponsload increase you would expect from a ship 3 times as big as a Bunker Hill class cruiser. Especially when a USN CG(or DDG) can swap our missiles in the same launcher and change the mix based upon the anticipated mission. Kirov's can't do that.

Ever since I my airwing was stationed on an aircraft carrier I didn't think they were a very good idea in a large scale war when a sub can creep up under it and blow it in half with a missile. The only ships that are really valuable in that situation are subs and small surface ships.

[David Floyd]

I've heard that during the Cold War the Soviets had a sub within range of every deployed carrier, ready to take it out, and that our ASW wasn't as good as we made it out to be, especially against some of the more advanced Soviet boats. True?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I've heard that during the Cold War the Soviets had a sub within range of every deployed carrier, ready to take it out, and that our ASW wasn't as good as we made it out to be, especially against some of the more advanced Soviet boats. True?

Only towards the end of the Cold War(due to the Walker Ring, long may they burn) when Soviet subs suddenly got a lot better(Toshiba sold them a bunch of propellor designs).

Now? We've gotten better(going so far as to rent a Swedish sub and train against it), they haven't, and they don't put to sea nearly as often as we do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I've heard that during the Cold War the Soviets had a sub within range of every deployed carrier, ready to take it out, and that our ASW wasn't as good as we made it out to be, especially against some of the more advanced Soviet boats. True?

That's what everyone on my ship said.

[Lonestar]

Kid, what rate were you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Kid, what rate were you?

I was in trouble all the time. I never made a rate, and got out as an E-2 (reduced). I served as a plane captain working on the flight deck.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I was in trouble all the time. I never made a rate, and got out as an E-2 (reduced). I served as a plane captain working on the flight deck.

undesignated airman?

[David Floyd]

I was in trouble all the time.

That's about as shocking as the missionary position.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar


undesignated airman?

Yep, three years of carrying those chains and washing those airplanes 12 hours a day. I had fun getting in trouble though.