Last Two Battleships!

[Kapitan]

i was meaning kirov V iowa 1 on 1

obviously russia would respond with at least 6 sovremennys the kuznetsov 4 udaloys the slava about 40 other ships and 17 submarines at least


northern fleet houses 7 oscar class submarines ready for action on gaurd for a 15 minuet notice one of these oscars can cause so much havoc that it would put the american oparation back alot if not destroy alot of ships in the process.

agies cant handle more than 10 targets at once each oscar would fire thier main batterys of 24 SS-N-19 missile and the kirov would fire her battery of 24 not to mention the kuznetsovs battery of 12

so thats 204 SS-N-19 missiles coming right at you at once no ship the american navy has could handle that many incoming projectiles then id move on to the sovremennys the tranutuls the nanchukas grishas krivack ect ect

try around 600 maybe more missile incoming at once best radar can track 60 targets at once even if you shoot down 1/3 its not enough it would render the battle group inoprable

the fleet wont move farther than the bearents sea and thus could run for home re arm and be back out to sea in time for round 2 the missiles the russian navy have out range any missile for anti ship (bar air launched) the USN has

even admitted by the americans whom said "we are 10 years behind the russians in anti ship missile technology"

[LuftWolf]

It all looks so neat on unclassified paper...

[Kapitan]

worked it out to around 512 missiles fired in one hit from 2/3 of the northern fleet

that would destroy a great deal of any battle group especialy as most of the missiles have a 2000lb warhead attached and are nuclear capible and out range american missiles.

only problem is rotation at dock fire that many missile gunna have a big hole in the stock gunna take a while to fill.

[Kapitan]

i acctualy set up a mission where the northern fleet engauged 4 american battle groups, results were amazing

the level pegged

[LuftWolf]

At the risk of sounding stupider...

I don't think it's an issue of one group verse another group like Jutland with missiles.

There are some very complicated electronic, logistical, and command related issues you are neglecting.

The bottom line is that America can keep the Russians in port at all points if necessary. Russia can't do that to the US.

If the conflict goes nuclear then this is all a mute point, but short of total war, the Russian's simply do not retain the power projection capabilities that the US does.

No amount of fashioning paper tigers can get around that fact.

[Kapitan]

that is true americas command and control is alot better than that of russia's but america would have a big job on thier hands if they were to even attempt to keep the russians in port.

shore batterys of missiles would fire on surface ships as would patroling surface ships,

america may have maps that say oh there base is here and we need to follow that river to get to it but russia will never realease the charts needed to navigate the trechorous waterways of murmansk or arkangelsk (plenty of man made obsticals)

i agree the control and command is a shambles in russia but in recent years they have bought it together and working on it and in a few years we may see then train with america they al ready do.

on the whole america alone doesnt have the power to keep russia in port there are plenty of back doors (north russia theres over 4,000 that i know of)

america would need help britain cant help because her precious convoys to russia which happen once a month to and from russia gaurded by british warships (normaly type 23 frigate).

america has some nice ships but with thier cut backs they now are starting to lack on things russia is catching up on faster and faster and they sell it bit by bit to china who catch up faster and faster

like a wheel never ends

[Kapitan]

in todays politics russia has no wish to keep american navy in port and is activly helping in gun and drug smuggleing and also the war on terrorism

(russian troops in afghanistan and also chechnya also part of alquieda)

russian navy deploys world wide the moskva was in malta not so long ago so was Azov and a few other ships including smilevy, russia visited australia for the first time with a narutashimy frigate also america too pearl harbour with admiral tributs or pantaleyev

just cause russia dont have the money america has doesnt mean its not a force to be dissmissed the russian navy is still hugely powerful more so a threat than china or any other country

and the best bit is they are now on our side

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

belgrano was obsolete even when she first was built the argentine navy was not well funded 90% of thier navy was ex WW2 at that time the captain of conquorer recals sighting US allen m summner class destroyers these were 1940's relics floating antiques by this time.

ultimutly the most unique thing that happend to the belgrano was the fact she was sunk by WW2 MK8 torpedos not wire guided tigerfish.

the crew were inadiquately trained the ship was poorly maintained (feture which showed on the 25th of may aircraft carrier) and were lacking funds to even support extended trips to sea.

Kapitian are you familiar with the ARA Santa Fe S-21? After she kept the British sweating as they took South Georgia they manage to catch her in shallow water and pounded her with bombs, torpedoes and missiles (AS-12s) but couldn't sink her. Eventually the crew beached her and abandoned ship. The Brits later scuttled her. She was a US Built Balao class GUPPY conversion (Ex USS Catfish SS-339) built in 1945! World War II relic my a$$, ASMs and homing torpedoes from Wasp and Lynx helicopters couldn’t sink her. What does that tell you about “made in USA�! :|\


Diesel Boats Forever!
Hear the diving klaxon sound.
Diesel Boats Forever!
Take her deep, and take her down.
:P :P :P

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Kapitian are you familiar with the ARA Santa Fe S-21? After she kept the British sweating as they took South Georgia they manage to catch her in shallow water and pounded her with bombs, torpedoes and missiles (AS-12s) but couldn't sink her. Eventually the crew beached her and abandoned ship. The Brits later scuttled her. She was a US Built Balao class GUPPY conversion (Ex USS Catfish SS-339) built in 1945! World War II relic my a$$, ASMs and homing torpedoes from Wasp and Lynx helicopters couldn’t sink her. What does that tell you about “made in USA�! :|\

It tells me the British needed to improve their aim and ASW techniques.

And I'd much rather recount the war record of the ARA San Luis:

Originally Posted by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Luis

Wikipedia article on the ARA San Luis[/url]]San Luis reported two attacks on Royal Navy ships during the war. On May 1, the RN ships HMS Brilliant and Yarmouth were sent to intercept the San Luis in the Falkland Sound channel. San Luis reported firing two torpedoes at the ship which subsequently missed.

San Luis attacked again on the night of May 10. Alacrity had made passage up the Falkland Sound, sinking an Argentine merchant navy ship on the way. As Alacrity left the channel before dawn, its sister ship Arrow was waiting to escort her back to the Task Force. San Luis detected the two ships and fired upon them, again missing.

For the rest of the war, San Luis tracked the British ships, but with no successful attacks.

Seems both sides could use some time on the torpedo range.

[TLAM Strike]

I’m curious to know what types of torpedoes each side used on each other. I know that a French built Pakistani submarine took three homing torpedoes to sink an Indian Destroyer back in the 60’s or 70’s. The torp that hit was fired at her stern. Are all homing fish so inaccurate?!? Or do real life sub commanders just lack my mad skills?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

agies cant handle more than 10 targets at once each oscar would fire thier main batterys of 24 SS-N-19 missile and the kirov would fire her battery of 24 not to mention the kuznetsovs battery of 12

so thats 204 SS-N-19 missiles coming right at you at once no ship the american navy has could handle that many incoming projectiles then id move on to the sovremennys the tranutuls the nanchukas grishas krivack ect ect

try around 600 maybe more missile incoming at once best radar can track 60 targets at once even if you shoot down 1/3 its not enough it would render the battle group inoprable

the fleet wont move farther than the bearents sea and thus could run for home re arm and be back out to sea in time for round 2 the missiles the russian navy have out range any missile for anti ship (bar air launched) the USN has

AEGIS can't handle 10 targets at once??? Let me tell you roughly how the system works. It can monitor well over 100 with SPY-1. The Aegis cruiser has four missile-directors, and 30 guidance channels.

Each SM-2 Standard SAM of the AEGIS system has three phases of flight: INS, MCG and terminal SARH. There are 122 on the Ticonderogas, Arleigh Burkes carry 98. The Flight IIA's carry more.

So, now, when an Aegis cruiser is facing 24 incoming Anti-Ship Missiles, and is put on "auto", it functions something like this, the system will volley the first four missiles, firing four SM-2's. As soon as the SAMs reach the MCG phase, the system will volley four additional missiles targeting SSMs #5, 6, 7 and 8; as soon as the first four SAMs reach terminal phase the system lights its directors, the system then takes the SM-2's 5, 6, 7 and 8 into the MCG, and fires four new missiles against targets 9, 10, 11, and 12. According to sources, the illuminators only need to "flash" the target in order to complete it's flight profile.

So, the Aegis can therefore simultaneously guide 12 SAMs at single targets. That's the unclassified version. But that's not all, however, there are several rates of fire, so you can set the system to engage every incoming target with two missiles. In that case it is going to simultaneously guide 24 SAMs against 12 different targets and time-share the illuminators.

And it also has six spare guidance channels. And don't forget about it's ability to cooperatively engage and use time-sharing management. So, it can take over SM-2s fired by other ships with the spare guidance channels. It can also use channels from other ships. Eventually, if totally saturated (unlikely in this day and age), the single ship system could for a few seconds take up to 30 SM-2s under control. Combine 3 Tico's and 1 Arleigh Burke and you could theoretically direct over 90 missiles simultaneously. In this regard, it's easy to see how a CSG with four AEGIS combatants can deal with 70 or more anti-ship missiles in an all out naval engagement at once. Heck, even 100. And I haven't even touched on point-defenses yet. Or aircraft from the carrier airwing itself. These two layers would provide defense against many more adding to the already set layer of AEGIS. At this point in time, Russia can't mass any force to deal with USN CSG's. I'd put my money on a USN strike group over anything the Russians can put in the water.

One more note. The AEGIS system has been tested against "multiple" sea-skimming supersonic targets and was extremely successful. Against MOSKIT types it will use many more methods to defeat the systems via electronic warfare methods. And you're forgetting the counterstrike capabilities of USN/USAF combined forces. I'm guessing that every single Russian naval/coastal facility in the North Fleet would be attacked on short order if Russia embarked on such an attack against a USN battle group. Long-range CALCM's and other LACM's from B-52's and B-1's, Next Generation Tomahawk strikes from naval surface and sub-surface platforms en masse, B-2 strikes in conjunction with certain electronic warfare means (B-2's can each carry 80 500 lb guided munitions), etc......It wouldn't be pretty.

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Or do real life sub commanders just lack my mad skills?

Imagine for a second you had never played any SubSim before. You're only practice was like that approach mission in Sub Command, where you fired and it was always considered a hit and a kill as long as you hit the buttons in the right order and you only do it maybe five or six times.

Then do it for real. I bet you'd screw something up, possibly multiple times. The thing about veteran commanders isn't that they're so good... it's just that everyone else sucks.

[Kapitan]

no war would be pretty the B52's probly wouldnt get passed russian air defence from the border of finaland to murmansk is a good hour and alot of SAM batterys same for the B1 may fly supersonic but doubt it will get passed.

aegis may be able to handle 30 targets at once or more or how ever many you said (cant remember) but if it did have such a wave even that couldnt handle a huge volly of that size.

your CIWS and phalanx systems couldnt engauge a SS-N-19 or 22 in time in fact they say the time the missile enters range the misssile is around 0.0025 second to impact (or something like that)

on hit from one of the missiles on a destroyer of cruiser would be a mission kill dont need to sink it damage it beyond its fighting capibility.

[XanderF]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

At this point in time, Russia can't mass any force to deal with USN CSG's. I'd put my money on a USN strike group over anything the Russians can put in the water.

THAT is an amusing quote, given the nature of this forum.

Last I checked [tongue firmly in cheek], Aegis's engagement capabilities vs subsurface threats are....somewhat less impressive.

[Kapitan]

a single oscar class can rien enough havoc to completely fu*k up a US CVBG now russia has 12 of them

america can deploy 12 battle groups that one oscar to each battle group meaning that the 12 battle groups will be stuffed over

simple plus the SM2 isnt that great it failed many times to intercept training exocets and there the low end anti ship missile if it cant take them then what chance have you got against a 24 tonnes missile that hurtling towards you at mach 2 and fitted with nuclear capible warheads.

not alot