Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kapitan
personnaly i think ships are more at risk tied up in home port, at least when they are at sea they can move out of the way of an incoming threat like a motor boat full of explosives, you cant do that tied to a dock.
Whats more you need to have your forces spread out slightly what would happen if they moved all the pacific fleet to alaska and another country over ran hawai ? be falklands repeat.
whats more the wosman really need to take a reality check SS-N-19 and 22's are fully capible of putting a carrier out of action, and with the chinese and russians getting close along with the indians theres going to be some worrying problems to come.
|
Well in all fairness to the 'poon its not designed for the same mission as the N-19 and N-22. It was designed for Anti-Sub work belive it or not. It was ment for P-3s to shoot at surfaced Russian subs back when they need to surface to fire their SLBMs.
The Harpoon has one advantage over the 19 and 22 in that it can be launched from many diffrent platforms most importantly from aircraft. I think the most any aircraft can carry is 1 or 2 N-22 while a simaler sized aircraft can carry 4+ Harpoons.
The US never had any reason to build weapons like the N-19 and N-22 because the Russians never had a huge fleet of advanced surface ships until the end of the cold war, which at that point the US Sub advantage negated them.
If the US built a ship along the same lines as a Russian Sov or Kirov at that time it probaly would have something like a couple of hundred Harpoons, four twin arm SAM launchers, three SH-2s and more ASROCs than you can shake a stick at. But we figure that a LA boat with a couple of dozen MK 48s would work much better.