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.

 

Most Firepower: US Navy comes second....

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I think these are fantastic and revealing studies. Great work.

However, although the British Royal navy no longer fields the Sea Eagle it does have helicopters per ship which lug the pretty effective Sea Skua ASMs. Heli-fielded weapons applies to many nations too...

I wonder what the inclusion of helicopter capabilities has on this work, alongside sub capabilities.

Regards




posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
You can't base firepower of the US Navy on antiship missile alone. The US Navy has always favored aircraft in place of antiship missiles for some time. It has been the opposite for the Russians because the Russians can't get large amounts of aircraft up in the air in the middle of the ocean. I also believe you forgot several weapons that are used by the US Navy to sink ships. You need to count in JDAM, SLAM, JASSM, JSOW, etc. JDAMs have already been used to hit moving target ships.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
How is Russia placed first on the Carrier list if it has 1 carrier and the US has 12?

I mean, 12 Carrier Battle Groups, that's like what? I don't know exactly how many aircraft each carrier has, so I can't do the math, but still that's 12 times what Russia has.

But all the other charts are very nice, US does have alot of missiles and focuses on aerial power over ships.

I agree on this assertion, Quality over Quantity.

Shattered OUT...


Those are not their "aircraft carrier ranks." They are their "firepower ranks" which were listed in his original post. I believe when he listed all the nations with carriers, he included their firepower ranks just as a nice reference.

Planeman- awesome work. It's knowledgeable people like yourself that put in such time and effort, that make ATS the great site that it is. You don't spew propaganda, you don't flame anyone, you just post the straight-forward, unbiased facts that you have available to you. Of course I'm basing this all on this thread alone, but what the heck, who cares?


You've definitely got one of my Way Above votes for this month. And that's a hell of an honor because I often go several months without using any of them! Keep up the good work, and stay on the straight and narrow! We've got enough biased, self-serving idiots on these boards as it is!



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
His lists have several problems. Is this "firepower" you speak of just composed of the amount of damage to other ships the navies can inflict. If you want a complete picture of the "firepower" of the navies you need to include land strike capability and in that case the US Navy would be on top by a wide margin. And the second problem is that numbers on Russian missiles stocks are either old or unreliable. Most of the missiles listed are not in wide deployment and how well they are updated and maintained could also be brought into question. And as I said above, he did not include all the weapons the US Navy uses against other ships. If you count Marines ships then you have Hellfire missiles from Cobra attack helicopter. You also need to include JDAM, 500 lb up to 2000lb. Then there is JSOW and he seemed to forget that Standard missiles have the capabilities to be used against ships.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Ok, updated:



Main amendments by country:

Russia:
* Removed Su-33's Kh-31A (AS-17 Krypton) capability
* Reworked the Tu-22 Backfire estimate. Reduced total aircraft estimate from 165 to 70 and split (estimated) between Tu-22M2 which are armed with 1 AS-4 Kitchen missile, and Tu-22M3s which carry 6 AS-16 Kickback missiles internally. Previously I'd wrongly only attributed one AS-16 per bomber.

China:
* Added fast attack craft
* Added submarine launched YJ-82s
* Added PLANAF's Su-30MK2 aircraft which would each carry two Kh-31A (AS-16 Krypton) anti-ship missiles

India:
* Increased the number of Kilo class subs believed to have anti-ship versions of SS-N-27 Klub missile equipped

General:
* Correction on Penguin missile's max speed.
* Added loads more navies.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Ok Planeman now that you’ve included the Tu-22 for Russia, tell me, have you included the B-52H’s which can carry up to 12 Harpoon D missiles for the US?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok Planeman now that you’ve included the Tu-22 for Russia, tell me, have you included the B-52H’s which can carry up to 12 Harpoon D missiles for the US?
I'd always included the Tu-22s because they are primarily anti-ship platforms armed with anti-ship missiles - I didn't include any Tu-95/142s or Tu-160s.

With US I took exactly the same line. I included the P-3Cs with Harpoons because the Harpoons are part of their 'normal' fit, but not the B-52s because like the Tu-95s they aren't normally tasked with firing Harpoons even though most (all?) are wired for them. The old days of the B-52Gs with loads of AGM-84s are no more, it now seems to just be a latent capability.

I've treated Russia and USA, and everyone else for that matter, evenly. I have nothing to gain from US coming second, except perhaps a controversial thread title. When I started this I expected the US to come out on top - just like they have the most WMDs, cruise missiles etc. But on anti-ship missiles the US seems to be loosing ground although I doubt it's something the USN is too bothered about since it clearly is aiming on different missions.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Ok thanks for explaining that, BTW I was wondering what gave the UK a higher rating on this thread than the one on your previous thread?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok thanks for explaining that, BTW I was wondering what gave the UK a higher rating on this thread than the one on your previous thread?

The main difference there is the increased range of air launched Harpoons which the RAF uses with its Nimrods. There might have been a slight increase in score on the Sa Skuas when I corrected my speed of sound figures but not sure how big that was.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Am i the only one who notices the high spot of Turkey.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolman
Because it works in mud, in the cold, when wet, under wartime conditions. American tech is great, but the maintenance is incredibly high, and the war in Iraq is draining maintenance budgets at 300 % what the pentagon estimated in 2002, and spare parts are becoming scarce.


That was a common belief during the cold war, it wasn't until the mid 90s did we learn that it was only true for some types of systems, but not all. Specifically, older tanks and simple aircraft types like the MiG-25 were solid vehicles with excellent performance ratings, but many of the modern system Russia deployed were maintenance nightmares. The Kirov class Battlecruisers, the all types of Victor Class submarines, and the MiG-31s are 3 great examples of high class vehicles with shoddy performance records, even to this day.



Originally posted by tomcat ha
Am i the only one who notices the high spot of Turkey.


Turkey has one of the largest militaries in the world with one of the longest military histories in the world, them being ranked so high doesn't surprise me at all. Keep in mind between their rivalry with Greece, proximity to the former Soviet Union, proximity to Iraq and Iran, and position near the Caspian Sea and Black Sea Turkey has had a lot on its plate for decades that have required a dedication to military functionality.

Planeman,

Good job sir. I would point out that while the US doesn't credit China with having Klubs on their Kilo class submarines, Japan, South Korea, and India always have.


India Tracks Chinese Sub Delivery

These three Kilo-class submarines, armed with the latest Klub-S cruise missiles, are the last batch of the eight contracted by China from Russia in a $2-billion deal in 2002," said a top source.


BTW, I have found several sources, mostly offline, that shows the TACTOM has an anti-ship role. That would completely tilt the scale if true, and I have good reason to believe it is considering the sources.


Official DoD Weapons Designation Guide

Under DoD Directive 4120.15 (reference (a)), this List shall provide a single DoD-wide source document containing approved Mission Design Series (MDS) designators and popular names for all aerospace vehicles.

...

RGM-109E Hughes Tomahawk 1
J402-CA-401
Navy Ship-launched, conventional
warhead, land-attack or anti-ship
weapon with a unitary warhead
(WDU-36/B).

UGM-109E Hughes Tomahawk 1
J402-CA-401
Navy Underwater-launched, conventional
warhead, land-attack or anti-ship
weapon with a unitary warhead
(WDU-36/B ).


That is a pretty credible online source considering it is the official DoD designation guide regarding the capabilities of the US munitions.

As I understand it, the IR camera and 2 way data link guidance system on the 109E (also known as the block IV or TACTOM), the missile can literally be steered by a Navy operator. DSMAC provides backup system if the datalink is jammed, able to target ships based on hull form factor. Uploads of a DSMAC image to a 109E takes between 7 and 10 seconds.

The advantage of DSMAC is with imaging, decoys, chaff, and anti-radar countermeasures would be entirely ineffective.

That might drastically effect the US numbers, although keep in mind the Block III Tomahawk is land attack only.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Those charts are outstanding! And your numbers don't pull any punches either. (granted, I understand them to be at least a little subjective, do to the nature of what you are gauging)

The US Navy is much more about power projection and forward presence than beating everyone up. As such, a greater portion of our capabilities lie in the ability to project our power ashore, and withstand hostile attacks. Fleet defencive capabilities would be an absolute nightmare to try and assemble in this form, and would wind up relying on so much guesswork and estimations as to render itself almost useless.

Force projection however, would probrably be a simpler task than what Planeman has undertaken, and I'd certainly love to see the figures. Strike aircraft, Cruise missiles, and to a much lesser extent, gunfire would be the real players there. I saw gunfire to a lesser extent due to it's far more limited range, but once the US starts fielding DD(X)s, that goes out the window. The relative values of aircraft or missiles wouldn't be such a factor as you probrably wouldn't be trying to put them through quite the AAW enviornment.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This other forum was the only site I could find where someone else was discussing the TACTOM anti-ship capability. Sorry but I have to link it. Link

If true then that's a huge capability gain, every US VLS equipped ship could carry them, including SSN’s and SSGN’s, the latter of course would be able to carry as many as 168!

[edit on 3-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Tomcat, no I was surprised too. Here's the spreadsheet calculations I used to get my figure:




Re TACTOM, yeah I'm willing to chuck it into my spreadsheet and see how it affects the figures. How many ships and/or aircraft are properly wired/equipped/issued.operational (whatever) for them as of 1st June?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
The T-ASM was replaced by the Block III in the 90s. It was originally going to be used by the Burke class DDG, and Ticonderoga CGs.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Considering that most of the Russian Fleet is sitting and rusting in port........


ah nevermind...



Ok the Russian navy is more powerful than the US 6th Fleet.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Considering that most of the Russian Fleet is sitting and rusting in port........


I would certainly question the fighting ability of any of the Russian arms. Their fleet does seem to find almost permanent anchorage in port, but then again they just cannot afford the military they were left with when the Soviet Union disintergrated.

Regards



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

planeman
I'm pretty much done with cataloging the world's main navies, adding up their anti-ship missiles and basically calculating who has the most firepower. This is just an expansion of the methodology put forward in the IndiaPakistan thread to include loads more countries.

Planeman, where is/are your sources and links, if applicable, at for the information you are posting up or used to garner this information you are espousing?
What dated material and estimating information did you use for your "cataloging"?
I did a number of searches, Milnet, Janes, etc., and I found it ironic that you could come up with a 'estimating' concise number when some of the missiles listed, utilized by the US Navy for example, are showing inventory numbers as being CLASSIFIED.

Again, your estimating sources and applicable links to them were, exactly?




seekerof

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

planeman
I'm pretty much done with cataloging the world's main navies, adding up their anti-ship missiles and basically calculating who has the most firepower. This is just an expansion of the methodology put forward in the IndiaPakistan thread to include loads more countries.

Planeman, where is/are your sources and links, if applicable, at for the information you are posting up or used to garner this information you are espousing?
What dated material and estimating information did you use for your "cataloging"?
I did a number of searches, Milnet, Janes, etc., and I found it ironic that you could come up with a 'estimating' concise number when some of the missiles listed, utilized by the US Navy for example, are showing inventory numbers as being CLASSIFIED.

Again, your estimating sources and applicable links to them were, exactly?




seekerof

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Seekerof]



This is something I've answered before. Because exact missile stock numbers are almost impossible to gauge (although some sources are pretty good, such as when an order is publicised like we know how many AGM-84s UAE ordered etc), I've formed my estimates based on counting the number of missile tubes on warships as per their quoted fit, by estimating the "normal" load for relevant aircraft (not their maximum load) and estimating the "normal" load for subs.

I've used numerous sources, but Wikipedia has proved invaluable as a starting point. I also found www.hazegray.org... to be excellent although slightly dated, and as ever for the middle east Tel Aviv university's various reports are excellent. Global Security tends to be copied straight off FAS which itself is often out of date, but it too has been useful. If I wanted to know if Spanish EF-18 Hornets carry Harpoons I'd have typed " Harpoon Spain F-18 " into google etc. Also the official websites of many navies are a good source of info. To find out if Argentine Type-42 Destroyer has Exocets fitted I did an image search on google....



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The T-ASM was replaced by the Block III in the 90s. It was originally going to be used by the Burke class DDG, and Ticonderoga CGs.


Yes, but that isn't what anyone is saying. THe T-ASM was the 109B, and as you said has been retired.

We are talking about the 109E, also known as the TACTOM.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join