It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Putin confirms anti-ship missile deployment to Crimea

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
This is pretty much just PR move. Primary activty in the Black Sea from NATO would be to defend its coast lines in Turkey, Rumania and Bulgaria while keeping the Russian fleet trapped. And if NATO thought these things were a threat a TLAM strike would end it. Coastal defense batteries/missles are of some use against a foe outside of the US/UK/France but, when you have a much much further strike capability they become nothing but targets.


I understand what your saying. NATO never felt they could move into the Black Sea area and conduct naval operations with much safety before the Crimea invasion. Now there is simply no way they could enter the Black Sea. I don't even think they could fight there way into the Black Sea.

I'm still thinking Russia will put Iskander's in Crimea like they did into Kalliningrad.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's another step backwards for world safety.




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
TLAMs won't work well against the Russian defenses. Batteries of Yakhont and Oniks will be protected by the Tor and Pantsirs point defense goodies.

TLAMs are NOT stealthy and are subsonic. JASSM are semi stealth but sub sonic. This means the last 10 miles to the target will take good 1 minute i.e. 60 seconds of time.

The Infra Red seeker of the Tor and Pantsirs missile will have more than enough time to destroy the incoming queens. Each TLAM costs good $500K and JASSMs from 1 to 1.3 million. It might be a bad mathematics to go after Bastions with TLAMs and cousins.

F-22s or hypersonic fully stealth missiles might have more efficiency ratings. As on street basis as of yet, Russians do not have answer to tracking and destroying stealthy deals.

Btw, one reputed Australian source conducted a study of Yakhonts vrs USN Aircraft Carrier group. One to one, Yakhonts will be shot down but a swarm of 24-36 will have few get through and hit targets in the carrier group. These missiles also do not come cheap and are at half million a piece and have a range of upto 300kms only. So will USN AC group be firing TLAMs from 500 kms outward and try to play the "deeper pockets" mathematics?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7
Nice post.

I don't think a Carrier group tries to move into the Black Sea anymore. Not like they were going to try before but it might have been a difficult option. If Crimea wasn't snatched by Russia and Ukraine was convinced to boot the Russians out of Sevastopol then everything would be different of course.

The main reason Crimea was annexed I figure.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Sure it is a game changer, because it is a new approach to an old target.
The score will be aircraft carrier 0, barrage of missiles 1.
It's the modern story of aircraft against battleships.
Then, the aircraft came from without the domain of battleship so it could not respond in kind.
Same with an aircraft carrier these days to a barrage of missiles. The button, well out of range, was pushed to launch them as the carrier's pilots were donning their gear. I essence, there is no one-on-one game in town anymore.


It is not a game changer.

Carrier based operations can and will easily be conducted from outside the systems range.

Not to mention it is guarded by AEGIS, and one of the best Defensive systems ever devised by man.

And now to top it off is testing the new solid state laser kill system.

Hi mach anti ship missiles are fast, light is still much faster, like the Missiles are standing still.

Confirmed kill at over a mile, cut right through a carbody and engine block like a hot knife through butter.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: victor7
TLAMs won't work well against the Russian defenses. Batteries of Yakhont and Oniks will be protected by the Tor and Pantsirs point defense goodies.

TLAMs are NOT stealthy and are subsonic. JASSM are semi stealth but sub sonic. This means the last 10 miles to the target will take good 1 minute i.e. 60 seconds of time.

The Infra Red seeker of the Tor and Pantsirs missile will have more than enough time to destroy the incoming queens. Each TLAM costs good $500K and JASSMs from 1 to 1.3 million. It might be a bad mathematics to go after Bastions with TLAMs and cousins.

F-22s or hypersonic fully stealth missiles might have more efficiency ratings. As on street basis as of yet, Russians do not have answer to tracking and destroying stealthy deals.

Btw, one reputed Australian source conducted a study of Yakhonts vrs USN Aircraft Carrier group. One to one, Yakhonts will be shot down but a swarm of 24-36 will have few get through and hit targets in the carrier group. These missiles also do not come cheap and are at half million a piece and have a range of upto 300kms only. So will USN AC group be firing TLAMs from 500 kms outward and try to play the "deeper pockets" mathematics?


Good points overall.

The deep pockets of the west are the true factor here.

The US alone can drop hundreds of expensive missiles daily for years and not even notice.

You are overestimating the need for stealth though.

Cruise missiles can easily come in under the radar and strike anything.

Just the nearly ancient tomahawk can run nap of the earth radar evasion routes.

That is not even close to one of our good munitions.

Unless russia has the ability to lower its radar floor to sea level, I don't see them stopping even a fraction of what would come in the first wave of a strike against a for as well armed as russia.

They would have to down hundreds per hour for weeks in end.

Not even close to possible.

Even the west couldn't effectively down more than a quarter at best at that sustained rate.

These launchers have limited shots, they have to be reloaded.

That is why you saturation bomb one erea, then kill their countermeasures during reload.

Make a hole and exploit it to expand your operations.

Russia can't out perform the west in this aspect.

They could not kill enough incoming to protect their countermeasures.

They would be worn down slowly, but it would happen.

That is assuming only cruise missiles and smart munitions were used by the west.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick




Cruise missiles can easily come in under the radar and strike anything.

Just the nearly ancient tomahawk can run nap of the earth radar evasion routes.


Did not know the nap of the earth strategy can be run by the cruise missiles. That gives them an extra points against the radars. Other modes likes IRST and passive trackers would have be coordinated in this case.

The lasers ofcourse are a new deal in town. But Russians can also use then for defensive purposes. Pantsirs also have missiles that blast cluster bomb fragments over the incoming threat area. However, there are 12 of these missiles in each Pantsir. Are these too few is the question of per situation basis.

The real threat to Russians would be missile with Hypersonic Stealth with Laser defensive mechanism. But they would be really expensive like $3 to 5 million each.

Would US throw in $200 million worth of JASSMs i.e. 200 such missiles to take out one area let's say Crimea's coastal defense? Guess $200 million for US is not much and especially when the opposing party is Russia or China. However, few mistakes and Ruskies can really rack up the costs of the misadventure to the aggressor.




That is why you saturation bomb one erea, then kill their countermeasures during reload.


That's why simple military strategy of keeping the reserves in tandem should be applied. When main defensive mechanism is busy reloading then reserves are active in defending and vice versa. After the first few rounds it will become the factor of numbers and depth in the pockets.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Throw in the latest Tomahawk that can be steered by aircraft and things get interesting. An AWACS well back and safe can change the target on it, and a fighter can actually guide it directly into the target.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Glad you join in Mr. Z. So what would be the first battle

a) TLAMs and cousins against the defensive area

or

b) dogfight between F22s and Su-35s.

Su-35s can fly out and unleash their Anti ship missiles to try to kill the launch pads but F-22s should put in an interception.

Currently Russia barely has 30 odd Su-35s, so outnumber 1 to 6 vrs F22s, it would be a down scenario to begin with it seems.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
Carrier based operations can and will easily be conducted from outside the systems range.

The range covers about 80% of the Black Sea from the Crimean Peninsula and completely denies the Eastern Black Sea.



Not to mention it is guarded by AEGIS, and one of the best Defensive systems ever devised by man.

unlikely to stop a swarm of missiles, as stated already. Just one gets through and the carrier is a coral reef.



And now to top it off is testing the new solid state laser kill system.
Hi mach anti ship missiles are fast, light is still much faster, like the Missiles are standing still.
Confirmed kill at over a mile, cut right through a carbody and engine block like a hot knife through butter.

that test was a stationary truck...a wee bit different than an incoming missile with a target profile about 1 foot radius. That system is years away from missile defense.

US military planners have openly worried about anti-ship missiles and carrier operations. You need to read up on those concerns cause they are real.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

US doctrine always starts with missile strikes against fixed emplacements and command and control facilities.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

The Navy has the ability to stop cruise missiles up to mach 2.5 with regularity.

The only way one cruise missile sinks a carrier is if it's nuclear. One of the older carriers built just after WWII was sunk in a weapons test, and had multiple explosives detonated in contact with and near the hull, including a 2000 lb explosive, and was in no danger of sinking until the scuttling charges were detonated.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
One minor point for Russians.

Saw a youtube video on presentation by a Russian scientist and he mentioned that lots of Russian missiles like Iskander have much more ability of longer range. In Iskander there is a big iron mass placed in 20-30% of the body to give missile more stability in flight. This mass can be reduced or removed and replaced by solid fuel for increased range.

1 anti ship missile cannot sink a AC unless the hit is in the critical area which triggers chain explosions etc. However, it can cripple the AC enough for new waves to find targets more easily, just a humble layman's view.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

Sure. It's called a Mission Kill. The problem then is that it's simply a matter of repairing the damage and it's back in operation.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7
To Zaph, actually.

What's the status of the TU-22? From my "Harpoon" days a flight of Backfires loaded with Sunburns was...scary. Very scary.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
And again why would NATO be sailing ships into the Black Sea? The Russian Black Sea Fleet is old and mostly junk. NATO airbases ring the Black Sea. It is like placing part of your fleet in prison while it waits it get bombed later. Which I suppose is why this fleet is so old. Outside of threatening Georgia it is not worth much.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

In the process of upgrading navigation and computer systems. Possibly some other systems as well.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
So...
Scary. Very scary?



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad
Did Russia sell one it's coolest ships (from the BS fleet) to China?


edit on 3/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I thought so.
I hated those thing in Harpoon. They sunk my Nimitz on an ongoing basis.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join