It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by planeman
...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.

Accordingly, then you must have also factored in or out those Russian vessels that are inactive, in mothball status, etc., correct? I have an old post/thread running around, a few years old but sourced, showing the actual numbers of ACTIVE Russian vessels, aircraft, etc. that I think would seriously put to contestation/question your "missile tube" and "normal" counting methodology. But then again, what is indicated in my old topic thread on those ACTIVE numbers for the Russians is easily found within the internet...

I've used numerous sources, but Wikipedia has proved invaluable as a starting point. I also found 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 Global Security tends to be copied straight off FAS which itself is often out of date, but it too has been useful.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....

:shk: Aight....


[edit on 5-7-2006 by Seekerof]

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:00 AM
Seekerof, you seem upset at my quantifications. Is national pride getting in here somewhere. If you have a better way of doing this then feel free to.

If I was to adjust Russia down as you seem so determined to do, then I would have to apply the same new method of counting to everyone else including US. That would mean a MASSIVE reduction in US firepower as rated in this exercise. For a start all the sub-launched Harpoons would go because the subs don't actually carry them. And I'm pretty sure that the AGM-119 Penguin isn't as widely deployed as I've had to assume. It's a two way path.

My estimate for CIS in more detail:

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:21 AM

Originally posted by planeman
Seekerof, you seem upset at my quantifications. Is national pride getting in here somewhere. If you have a better way of doing this then feel free to.

Your talking your 'a' typical "quantifications and national pride rhetoric again, planeman. Here's a thought and gander at why you think I am "upset": Your "quantifications" are unreliable, inadequately sourced, and because they are inadequately sourced and presented, your "quantifications" are unreliable and lack siginificant validity, period.

As to me having a "better way," first off, why should I provide you, of all self-proclaimed knowledgeable individual's on and within this forum, with a "better way" when you already feel, as insinuated by your own postings, that YOUR way is the best or "better way."

If I was to adjust Russia down as you seem so determined to do, then I would have to apply the same new method of counting to everyone else including US.

Yes, of course, I would also wager that you included Russian vessels that were ACTIVE but not combat ready, as well; probably including in that "missile tube" and "normal" count those Russian vessels that are mothballed, huh? Hence your unsupported graphings and information lead to this type of exchange between the two of us. No validity to what you have presented, at all till properly sourced for verification, period.
Here is an example of ACTIVE yet not combat viable:

Still counting or including those mothballed Typhoon-class submarines, eh?

That would mean a MASSIVE reduction in US firepower as rated in this exercise.

Highly doubtful, being you have yet to source anything for verification against what you are saying. Your numbers are UNSUPPORTED, and it is not up to those who read your topic to have to prove to the otherwise, it is YOU who must provide such backing being it is YOU who have presented the case: thus how about effectively back your assertions?

For a start all the sub-launched Harpoons would go because the subs don't actually carry them. And I'm pretty sure that the AGM-119 Penguin isn't as widely deployed as I've had to assume. It's a two way path.

Is it? Prove it.

My estimate for CIS in more detail:

Providing one bit of proof to your thus far inadequately backed information is immaterial and quite lacking, planeman.


[edit on 5-7-2006 by Seekerof]

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 09:53 AM
Your counter argument, which seems more like a pissing contest than anything constructive, makes assumptions about what I have and haven't done that suggests that you haven't read the whole thread nor the India-versus-Pakistan thread which started this research effort off. I have desribed and listed my sources several times - you are not the first to ask. And I have discussed my methodology which I admit isn't perfect, but it is as good as I have time to undertake.

Your Peter the Great reference is a curiosity but doesn't invalidate the inclusion of that ship since it merely demonstrates that she was operational in June, which is the basic cut-off point I've used throughout this exercise.

My data is reasonably transparent; I have no qualms posting my specific calculations for any particular country, as you have seen. And I have endeavored to treat every country evenly. I am no more pro-CIS than I am pro-USA or pro-Mongolia.

Your comments about info being "invalid" makes me wonder if you really have a working grasp of research or assessing evidence credibility or the making of reasonable estimates. Invalid is a strong term. All info is valid in this sort of research, just to varying degrees which can be described as credibility.

You have rolled your eyes at my evidence gathering. That's your call but makes me wonder just what you expect. I have researched 50 or so Navies, using multiple internet sources for each one- what do you expect?

[edit on 5-7-2006 by planeman]

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:41 PM

I don't see your beef, the numbers he is using for Russia matches the same reported in the open source for available equipment , and as he outlined in not only this thread, but the Pakistan vs India thread, he has established his own criteria based on ASM missiles and his own estimation regarding their ability. He has not claimed it is the end all of sources, rather a method he has provided to utilize in comparison.

I also have several issues with his rating system, specifically with his sophistication rating for specific missile systems, but that doesn't invalidate his data by any means, nor the research planeman has put into it. Example, he scores the sophistication of the SS-N-22 at 850, scores the SS-N-27 at 900, but he scores the Harpoon for Taiwan at 850 while the Harpoon for Turkey is 900. In my opinion, those scores appear off, but that is just one opinion, and planeman has enabled the system in place to adjust as needed if I choose to do so.

Example, I happen to think the US Harpoons would score below both Turkey and Taiwan, but the US Harpoons would score above the SS-N-22, and all 3 would score well below the SS-N-27. It is all subjective though, my opinions are formed based on my knowledge of systems and sources available to me, and the same applies to him.

What it comes down to is, if you have a problem, point specifically to what it is that you have a problem with, because general criticism based on no specific criteria isn't qualified analysis, its just general whining.

BTW, My sophistication score would be as follows:

US Harpoon = 800
SS-N-22 = 700
Taiwan and Turkey Harpoon = 850
SS-N-27 = 900

My score would come from a combination of speed + stealth + range + terminal guidence. Speed is a factor in response evelope, but supersonic missiles sacrifice stealth for speed, so it is also a negitive in warfare. Stealth determines the overall engagement window, which is critical to successful attack. Range matters, it is why Norway and Denmark FACs would dominate USSR SS-N-22 destroyers in cold war era wargames, and terminal guidence determines options other than direct intercept available for countering attacks.

Remember, not a single missile attack in history has been countered with a direct intercept via missile, although several missile attacks have been countered successfully. In each, counter-measures other than direct intercept was successful. Example, during the Falklands War, HMS Yarmouth, a Type 12 Frigate defeated an Exocet using Chaff, while the HMS Sheffield, a Type 42 Destroyer, was sunk in the same attack after failing to deploy any countermeasures. During Operation Preying Mantis, the Joshan fired a AGM-84A Harpoon missile at the USS Wainwright, which avoided the missile despite it being fired at a range of less than 26,000 yards using chaff.

All this means is that my rating system would be as subjective as the rating system planeman has provided. If you don't like what planeman has done, offer a specific alternative, because general criticism alone without detail isn't productive.

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:05 PM
I think you have an excellant start at this rating system working within availible information Planeman. I have a few issues with some of your information. Would you be willing to refine your ratings if documented information were to be provided? Could we use this thread to bring such information to your attention?

I don't think that you should count the B-52s Harpoons at all. The B-52 is an Air Force airframe with the capability of carrying anti-ship missiles. The TU-22s how ever are attached to Russia's Naval Air Forces and should be counted.

I noticed that the Standard missiles are not counted however. Both the SM-1 and SM-2 missiles are capable of being used in both an anti-ship and shore bombardment role. It may not be an efficient use but they have the capability.

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:09 PM
Darksided in the 1991 Gulf War an Iraqi Silkworm missile headed either for the USS Missouri or HMS Gloucester was shot down by a British Sea Dart missile, this was the first confirmed naval missile to missile kill in combat. I’m assuming by missile attack you meant naval missile attacks (ship to ship)?

[edit on 5-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Darksided in the 1991 Gulf War an Iraqi Silkworm missile headed either for the USS Missouri or HMS Gloucester was shot down by a British Sea Dart missile, this was the confirmed first naval missile to missile kill in combat. I’m assuming by missile attack you meant naval missile attacks (ship to ship)?

Oh yes sir, I am very aware of it.

I have a good friend, a British officer in fact, who was serving on the USS Missouri during that attack. The missile had no chance of hitting any ship in the task force during that attack, and the HMS Gloucester shot down the missile after the Captain requested permission and was authorized to engage the missile despite knowing it was no danger to the force.

My friend was particularly proud of that moment, being one of only 3 British officers in the warroom of the Missouri at the time, having 'showing the yanks' how it is supposed to be done.

Some historians don't count it as an actual missile attack, although it technically did occur during wartime, because even the RN acknowledges the missile was not inbound on any specific warship and posed no threat at the time of intercept. Had the Iraqi's been putting up more of a fight during Gulf War I, the missile would not have been intercepted as to not reveal the position of the Task Force.

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:27 PM
But it is nevertheless a naval shoot down of an enemy missile via another missile is it not? As such I think it qualifies for a missile to missile kill.
BTW what sophistication rating would you give the AGM-84K, is it more sophisticated than its ship launched counterpart?

[edit on 5-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:11 PM
re Harpoons at sophistication 850 or 900. For countries that I found reports of having Block II Harpoon I put it at 900, for all others 850, including US - that's where the differences lay. If I am wrong i'm more than happy to refine my assessments as I have previously done.

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 11:15 PM
The ship launched Harpoons in the US inventory are AGM-84Gs. The AGM-84G model is basically a mid-80s AGM-84D with improved terminal guidance and ECCM. All US Harpoons had completed the upgrade by 1998, meaning US ship launched harpoons haven't been upgraded since 1998. Terminal guidance for these systems is limited to radar only.

The SLAM-ER and SLAM-ATA are some of the most modern anti-ship missiles in the world. Not only does the AGM-84K have better range and payload, it also has multiple options for improved terminal guidance including IR/GPS/Radar.

So, if say a USN CG was facing an enemy ship, the AGM-84Gs are more likely to be fooled by a combination of chaff/decoys, where if the enemy destroyer is facing a F/A-18E Super Hornet, not only is the Super Hornet attacking at longer range, but also with more payload, and additionally if it is carrying the right pod, could calculate unradiated distance using GPS before switching to IR for terminal guidance, which would effectively neutralize radar based countermeasures and most decoys.

After all, only 1 ship in the world currently carries a decoy with a larger IR signature than the ship itself, and that is the La Fayette class built by France and used by France, Singapore, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia.

So for me, the AGM-84K would get a 850-875 rating for its stealth, payload, range, and terminal guidance while the AGM-84G would get a rating of 800 OR LESS because it radiates, has only one guidance system, shorter range, and less payload. The AGM-84G can be detected OTH when radiating even at near sea level by virtually all modern radars within 100km, while the newer AGM-84K is much more difficult to detect OTH, and may not be picked up until within less than 20km and even then only by modern radar systems trained on the axis of approach.

Same reason I would rate the Sunburn very low. It has virtually no stealth, the heat signature of the Sunburn gives away the launching position at launch time from virtually any modern radar within the 70km range of the weapon, and that short range is a major disadvantage. Add to that the requirement to radiate the entire time due to limited guidance options, and about the same payload as the AGM-84K. The Sunburn for me is 700 tops.

Also the same reason I rank the Klub so high. The Klub approaches at subsonic speed without radar, then pops up when it reaches a specific point and chooses among various options for terminal guidance, and to add further, the terminal phase booster increases the speed to super-sonic speeds which effects both payload impact and envelope time for intercept. This type of ramjet anti-ship missile is the future for countries that lack the electronic countermeasure capabilities of the US missile systems. Factor in the 300km range, good payload, high stealth factor, and smart use of speed for terminal guidance and the Klub would be a 900 for me.

The top would be a Tomahawk 109E though. At 1000nm, best ECCM available on any cruise missile, the most diverse set of guidance on any missile in the world, and payload up to 2000lbs makes the 109E the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world. Unless AEW was available, it is unlikely a ship would detect the 109E missile within 10km, as evident during OIF when several allies including Australia and Spain were unable to detect 109Es used for land attack launched by UK submarines 30km away, and Spain for example was using AEGIS. For me, the 109E would be the equal or better of the Klub.

To each their own though.

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 07:02 PM
Heres a video of the C-801 in the thai navy doing test runs without a warhead inside.

Notice how its skins the water before it hits, this missile (or its longer ranged brother) is claimed by the israelis to have hit their warship. By-passed all their advanced defences and hit

[edit on 15-7-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 01:22 AM
I don't think this is as much a ranking of navies as much as the ranking of a navy's ability to destroy enemy surface ships in air to sea or sea to sea combat.

1. Anti-ship missiles aren't going to target a submarine
2. Nor are they going to bomb strategic targets in theatre

I'm interested in both the full analysis of the US and Iranian navies/anti-navies. Perhaps you should next compare the air forces and ground forces of nations.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by Augmenter]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 01:58 AM
Planeman, after carefully viewing your sophistication rankings, I observe you rank the BrahMos highest at 920, but you don't mention this in Russian stats.
Also I am reworking the number of platforms and ready to fire missiles in the IN, while I continue my ship-wise analysis.I feel you may have got that part slightly wrong there.
Hopefully I can finish this rework by next weekend.

CW can you givea source on that C 801 Israeli hit?

[edit on 16-7-2006 by Daedalus3]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Daedalus3CW can you givea source on that C 801 Israeli hit?

The reports say it was a missile attack and irael says its a C-801 series. My article says C-802 but that would be a waste of a missile considering it has a very long range and would be more useful in iran. Also the C-701 has been mentioned

Israel: Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack

Israel initially believed that an aerial drone armed with explosives hit the warship, but it became clear that Hezbollah had used an Iranian-made C-802 missile to strike the vessel late Friday, an Israeli intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.


Iranian Missile Hits Israeli Ship

By Sher Zieve – On Saturday, Israel advised that Hezbollah fired missiles that hit an Israeli ship were manufactured in Iran. The missile, which was fired Friday was said to have been confirmed as Iranian in origin by an Israeli military official Saturday.


posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:32 AM
hmm.. true enough.. but the ship made it back to harbour..
What ship was it?

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:50 AM
Its called the Saar-5 class. Small crew of about 60(?) and lightly armoured. Wouldn't stand much againest a anti-ship attack

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:11 AM
It was C-802 fired from Beruit.

There was a massive explosion in Beruit this morning, Israel went after the launcher.

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:48 AM
It was reported that 50 kilograms went into the ships hull while the C-802 has a 165kg warhead. Anything that size would have cut that little ship in half

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The US has ALWAYS been behind the Soviet Union/Russia in terms of absolute firepower.

Not always; it had a nuclear war fighting edge for a long time and could have used the opportunity to crush the USSR once and for all had that been the aim of the true masters of America.

The US philosophy has been quality over quantity, where the Russians has always been quantity over quality. They've always built cheaper with higher numbers, since WWII.

And quantity has a quality of it's own last i checked. Considering the Russian industrial base it always had to make certain compromises in terms of what it could field but i do not think that was the main driving force behind it's decision to field the type of tanks or armored forces that it choose to. The Germans had at the end of the war rather awesome tanks but what actually held the line against Soviet advances was SP gun's of various designs that could not take a hit from much anything at any distance. One can see from post war design that the Germans well realised this and that the USSR and America were both later seduced into the 'super tank killer' fantasy.


top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in