Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sub that shadowed Russian carrier Kuznetsov was targeted and was forced to retreat

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



Same reasons the Russians and Chinese shadow our carrier groups...

And believe it or not, the Russians (remember, the guys that crushed the Nazis in WW2 and held the mighty US at bay for 50 years?) are not entirely incompetent, nor is their hardware entirely unsophisticated.

And when they detected the sub, the skipper of said boat, not being an idiot, backed off a bit.

It's not particularly difficult to believe any part of this story.


Hooray for logic and common sense! With out them History, be it true or manufactured is just a pile of rubbish.




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



What you say is true. It is also wrong. The Russians didn't crush the Germans *at sea*, the RN did that. The Russians have never crushed anything *at sea* except for their own delusion that they were a world power.


Wow now, somebody obviously has something to grind here, so I suggest starting from here before we go any further;


www.neva.ru...

It’s a full chronology of the Russian Navy, so feel free to distill your “opinions” into a spirit worthy of consumption.


The last time the Russians put to sea in force in order to force an engagement they sailed from St Petersburg to the Tsushima Strait where they were promptly annihilated by the Japanese.


Feel free to start a dedicated thread on that topic so we can examine at detail the reasons for the Russian defeat and what exactly it had to do with conspiracies, power plays and internal intrudes with in Russian command.

Care for a challenge? Because I’m game!


What was it Blackadder said? "This war would be a lot easier if we just stayed at home and killed 50,000 of our own men each month"...


Oh yes, I do recall a biographical record of a conversation between two navy commanders, an Englishmen asked a Russian “Why do Russians need a Black Sea fleet?” and the Russian commander replied “So we’ll never have to be asked such a question ever again.”

I got more, so fire away.


The Russians (Soviets) *learned* from the Germans in WW2, watching what Donitz' wolfpacks did to that isolated island-nation the UK...


HowlrunnerIV, what is the ratio of German naval losses to Soviet Navy verses all allied Western Navy and what percentage of that was German cargo shipping verses war vessels?


Which is where the only redeeming feature of the truly awful adaptation of Spy Story comes in. As one character notes when given the answer that maybe the Soviet subs are "flying the flag" all over the world, with just a couple of dozen subs Hitler nearly starved the UK into submission and the Sovs have a couple of hundred subs, so maybe the character had better be careful where the Soviets are flying the flag and who they're sticking it up!


An elaboration would be appreciated, because I can’t make sense of any of that.


Of course CBGs *probably* won't go after CBGs. Of course submarines will *probably* go after CBGs, but the point is that the US spent 50 years avoiding a direct confrontation with the Soviets, just as the Soviets spent 50 years avoiding a direct confrontation with the Yanks. Why would that suddenly change now? Especially when the Russian defence forces have spent the last 15 years being run down, not worked up.


Wrong, even Congretional library has records of USN subs regularly provoking Sov subs which resulted in near collisions and hull scrapes.


Why would that suddenly change now? Especially when the Russian defence forces have spent the last 15 years being run down, not worked up.



Because while the bottom of our economy is falling right from under us the Russians are sitting on a pile of oil money which they are dumping into their military.

Other then that, Russian sub funding was NEVER cut through out the entire “transitional period”.


The other point is that if the supposed flagship of the submarines can't be trusted to work right and the rest of the service can't be trusted to rescue those on board, who would genuinely expect the aircraft carrier to work right? And where can a carrier the size of AK project power in any meaningful way? The Falklands? Iceland? Svalbard?


I completely missed the point on that one, help me out here.


Two Nimitz class carriers sailing together can carry enough aircraft to overwhelm the RAAF. The Admiral Kusnetzov cannot.


Two apples on one plate can not taste like a single apple on a tree.

If you don’t get what that ment, read here;

www.fallacyfiles.org


The Poms sent 3 carriers to the South Atlantic and were still stretched, how many have the Russians got?


Well, the one they got has not been caught with its pants down like the Kitty Hawk keeps getting “exposed”.


Plus, how many subs will the USN and RN send against the Kusnetzov CBG in a confrontation? One? Only slightly unlikely.


That’s a tad illogical. The announcement states that the sub that was shadowing Kuznetsov was tracked, targeted and chased away, it does not mention anything about if other subs that the presence of other subs was monitored.


So, re-phrase my question. How could a ship that spent 90% of its life doing nothing hope to take on 3 or 4, or more, Los Angeles/Seawolf/Trafalgar class submarines?


With mission specific airborne sub hunters like IL-38 May? Or haw about search radar/torpedo armed Helix? And other numerous anti-submarine airborne platforms which get their targeting from ships in question?

Basic, text book stuff here, and that IL-38 was there locked and loaded to drop a torpedo on the intruder if it was necessary.

edit:bracket

[edit on 20-12-2007 by iskander]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



And what Russia is doing in and to Georgia isn't enough of a provocation for economic retaliation?


You mean the puppet government of Sakashvili that imposed marshal law upon the entire country because the people of Georgia called for his impeachment?

That for three weeks he closed down ALL independent and private owned media outlets and only the official government TV stations was feeding propaganda and disinformation while independent TV stations transmitters were confiscated by Georgian police?

I guess he learned all that from of information and democracy from his father figure that put him in power, Bush junior.


Russia's sale of uranium to Iran isn't enough of a provocation?


Hey, who GAVE sarin to Sadam Hussein, which he in turn gassed the very Kurds that CIA promised air support if they started an uprising against Saddam?

While Iran’s nuclear program is under UNs watch has confirmed peaceful perposes, sarin gas is chemical weapon of mass destruction, so please do mind throwing stones while living in a glass house.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

So, re-phrase my question. How could a ship that spent 90% of its life doing nothing hope to take on 3 or 4, or more, Los Angeles/Seawolf/Trafalgar class submarines?


The fact of how long a ship has spent doing nothing is completely irrelevant.

The answer to how she would fair being hunted by 4 modern western submarines is a foregone conclusion, she'd be at the bottom of the atlantic.

Much the same as the Ronnie Reagan would be at the bottom of the sea if it was hunted by 4 modern akulas/oscars.

The carriers country of origin is completely irrelevant, this class of ship has been proven time and again to be very vulnerable to submarines.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Tonka
 


I seriously doubt Ronnie's CBG would be (belligerently) at sea without ASW escorts (one of which, I am told, would BE a submarine), a mission for which the entire CBG would have trained, while they were, you know, at sea. (As for Ark Royal, which you ignored, its sole purpose when designed was ASW operations in the North Atlantic...) So, how would the Ronnie fare against 3 Akula's? Better than AK against 3 LAs.

The length of time a ship has been at sea (or in port/drydock) has everything to do with how well it can carry out a given mission. Unless that mission is to drink beer and chat-up women in waterfront bars...

As noted, AK's boss is such a knucklehead he chose to fly between oil rigs without alerting the Norwegians he'd be doing it...balls substitute for brains only when you want to win a VC...



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Tonka
 



Much the same as the Ronnie Reagan would be at the bottom of the sea if it was hunted by 4 modern akulas/oscars.

The carriers country of origin is completely irrelevant, this class of ship has been proven time and again to be very vulnerable to submarines.


Yep, agreed yet again. Tonka, I see a pattern developing here : )



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



As noted, AK's boss is such a knucklehead he chose to fly between oil rigs without alerting the Norwegians he'd be doing it...balls substitute for brains only when you want to win a VC...


You know the guy?

p.s. Answers to my previous questions would be appreciated.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



And what Russia is doing in and to Georgia isn't enough of a provocation for economic retaliation?


You mean the puppet government of Sakashvili that imposed marshal law upon the entire country because the people of Georgia called for his impeachment?


No, I was thinking more of the continued situation vs-a-vis Abhkazia and there was that little piece of trade suppression vis-a-vis Georgian wine, but if you want to talk about internal Georgian matters, rather than Russian interference in Georgia, go right ahead...



Russia's sale of uranium to Iran isn't enough of a provocation?


Hey, who GAVE sarin to Sadam Hussein, which he in turn gassed the very Kurds that CIA promised air support if they started an uprising against Saddam?


Um, I'm pretty sure I typed in I then r then a, yes they all match, then finished with an "n". Which for those not looking for red herrings, would be next door to Saddam's former presidential seat.

Who cares about Sarin (except the Kurds and Japanese) in the 80s when the big issue occupying George W Bush (who, according to wee Jock is roaring for a confrontation with Putin) is Iran's plutonium enrichment programme?

Oh, wait, that just reminded me, hey, Jock, didn't W look Putin in the eye and judge him as "a man to do business with"?

iskander, get off the red herrings and actually read what I posted and what it was in response to. What has Saddam and sarin got to do with the US and Russia having a confrontation today?

And finally, Iskander, when did Saddam gas the Kurds and when did the US promise them air support? Halabja was in the 80s. No-Fly-Zones were next decade.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

I seriously doubt Ronnie's CBG would be (belligerently) at sea without ASW escorts (one of which, I am told, would BE a submarine), a mission for which the entire CBG would have trained, while they were, you know, at sea. (As for Ark Royal, which you ignored, its sole purpose when designed was ASW operations in the North Atlantic...) So, how would the Ronnie fare against 3 Akula's? Better than AK against 3 LAs.


How do you track a submarine?? Answer: sound.
CBG = Noisiest thing in the ocean.
Attacking submarine = quietest thing in the ocean.
You really think one L.A. skulking under a CBG is going to pick out an enemy submarines sound signature with all those background acoustics?
The first inkling of an enemy that the L.A. would know about would be the sound of high speed screws, the screws of the torpedoes about to rip the guts out of the Ronnie Reagan!!!

So what your trying to imply here is that while an L.A. could sink a Russian carrier theres no way an Akula could take out an American carrier?

I think your patriotism is blinding your view/common sense.

News flash champ while it is true the Russian sub force lagged behind the Americans in a number of key technological areas throughout the cold war, by the 1980's Russian subs were more than a match and in a lot of cases superior to American subs, dont believe me?

Heres what your own government departments had to say on the subject in 1996:

Russia now has in operation about half a dozen Improved Akula nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). These SSNs are quieter than the best U.S. SSNs now in service. Quieting is a key factor in submarine capability, and this is the first time that Russia's best SSNs have had a quieting advantage over the best U.S. SSNs. (The U.S. will regain a narrow edge in SSN quieting when the first Seawolf (SSN-21) class submarine (see below) is commissioned in 1997.) Production of Improved Akulas continues. Production of a more advanced SSN, known variously as the Severodvinsk, Papa IX, or fourth-generation boat, is underway; it is expected to enter service around 2000. A fifth-generation submarine is reportedly more than two years into the design process.


Heres the link

The second generation Akulas were recognised as a better boat than the 688i's even by your own navy/government, there faster,quieter, dive deeper and are better armed than there American equivalents!

(Anyone that tries to compare seawolf or virginia to akula dont waste your time, the akula predates both, compare them against Severodvinsk class)

And who said it would be an Akula attacking? The Russians built a whole class of SSGN's with the primary roll of taking out CBG's, currently the Oscar 2's. There P700 Granit anti-ship missiles have a range of 5 to 600 km's. As Iskander said these misiles are fired in swarms and communicate with each other via datalink to prioritize there targets!

Granit Anti-Ship missile

American CBG's have been caught with there pants down a number of times, the Chinese did it not that long ago with a bloody diesel electric!

Heres the link

Both the Asheville and the Seawolf were in the region though no-one from the U.S. Navy has stated what they were doing while the Kitty Hawk got raped.

Oh then theres always HMAS Waller that drilled 2 ( thats right TWO) 688's
before getting within firing range of the USS Abraham Lincoln and withdrawing undetected, they never even knew they'd been sunk until Waller thoughtfully sent them some periscope piccy's. Waller is a Collins class diesel/electric boat.

Heres the link

Now, what were you saying about your CBG's anti submarine training?



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



What you say is true. It is also wrong. The Russians didn't crush the Germans *at sea*, the RN did that. The Russians have never crushed anything *at sea* except for their own delusion that they were a world power.


Wow now, somebody obviously has something to grind here, so I suggest starting from here before we go any further;


www.neva.ru...

It’s a full chronology of the Russian Navy, so feel free to distill your “opinions” into a spirit worthy of consumption.


Yes, I've read a full chronology of the Russian navy. I stand by what I said. Note well my first sentence. The Red Army crushed the Whermacht, the Red Navy did nothing. It was the RN slogging through the North Sea and losing men to supply Stalin, Stalin's ships were nowhere to be seen. Of course you could say that about the British Army and Leningrad...The only thing I have to grind is the truth.



The last time the Russians put to sea in force in order to force an engagement they sailed from St Petersburg to the Tsushima Strait where they were promptly annihilated by the Japanese.


Feel free to start a dedicated thread on that topic so we can examine at detail the reasons for the Russian defeat and what exactly it had to do with conspiracies, power plays and internal intrudes with in Russian command.

Care for a challenge? Because I’m game!


Start your thread, then.



What was it Blackadder said? "This war would be a lot easier if we just stayed at home and killed 50,000 of our own men each month"...


Oh yes, I do recall a biographical record of a conversation between two navy commanders, an Englishmen asked a Russian “Why do Russians need a Black Sea fleet?” and the Russian commander replied “So we’ll never have to be asked such a question ever again.”

I got more, so fire away.


Could they be to do with futile military gestures that cost thousands of lives, then? That would be helpful.



Which is where the only redeeming feature of the truly awful adaptation of Spy Story comes in. As one character notes when given the answer that maybe the Soviet subs are "flying the flag" all over the world, with just a couple of dozen subs Hitler nearly starved the UK into submission and the Sovs have a couple of hundred subs, so maybe the character had better be careful where the Soviets are flying the flag and who they're sticking it up!


An elaboration would be appreciated, because I can’t make sense of any of that.


Fine. The Soviets saw the early devestating effects of the U-Boats on British supply lines across the North Atlantic. The Soviets themsleves did basically squat blue navy-wise in WW2. Their riverine fleet was active as hell because they have such excellently big rivers on which to do stuff, like transport stuff and drive fast boats with big guns long, long ditances...
After the war the Soviets developed a huge submarine fleet. A fleet which regularly deployed into the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. With large amounts of "success" I am led to believe. Why would it be doing that, except to be able to do it again in wartime? All the world could see the US carriers, where were the Soviet carriers? What Soviet carriers? Submarines were the name of their game.

Which is what the American character is pointng out to the British character in the dreadfully bad film adaptation of Len Deighton's Spy Story.



Of course CBGs *probably* won't go after CBGs. Of course submarines will *probably* go after CBGs, but the point is that the US spent 50 years avoiding a direct confrontation with the Soviets, just as the Soviets spent 50 years avoiding a direct confrontation with the Yanks. Why would that suddenly change now? Especially when the Russian defence forces have spent the last 15 years being run down, not worked up.


Wrong, even Congretional library has records of USN subs regularly provoking Sov subs which resulted in near collisions and hull scrapes.


pfft. Try understanding the topic. I've seen RN and Icelandic boats hull-scrape. And it was deliberate. That's not a superpower confrontation. It's chest-thumping. Soviet pilots fought in Korea. Why didn't Truman put it on the font page of every paper in the world? Why did Harry tell General Clay not to drive to Berlin with a couple of bags of coal in his jeep?



Why would that suddenly change now? Especially when the Russian defence forces have spent the last 15 years being run down, not worked up.


Because while the bottom of our economy is falling right from under us the Russians are sitting on a pile of oil money which they are dumping into their military.


Ever seen how long it takes for a seriuosly degraded military (and the Red Army/Navy/AF weren't that good to begin with) to be worked up again? No matter how much money you've got. Why don't you look at how well they did in Chechnya the first time around. The word was "suddenly". They are still years away from the ability to go anywhere and do anything special.


Other then that, Russian sub funding was NEVER cut through out the entire “transitional period”.


Really. Then what were all those photos of rusting subs tied alongside in Vladivostok and Ukraine we saw in the late 90s? As I said, if the Kursk couldn't be trusted to operate safely and the rest of the navy couldn't be trusted to fish them out...



And where can a carrier the size of AK project power in any meaningful way? The Falklands? Iceland? Svalbard?


I completely missed the point on that one, help me out here.


Let's see. In the last thirty years, where have light carriers successfully projected power? Oh, the South Atlantic. So, where, in the Russian "sphere" are there similar locations?



Two Nimitz class carriers sailing together can carry enough aircraft to overwhelm the RAAF. The Admiral Kusnetzov cannot.


Two apples on one plate can not taste like a single apple on a tree.

www.fallacyfiles.org


Thanks for that, of zero help. Why don't you try counting the planes next time. So, my point (including the next bit)is this: Task Force South was operating at stretched capabilites and still was not sure of victory. What saved it was the distance the land-based planes had to fly. The AK, if having a go at EU targets, will not be so far from land-based jets and will not have other flat-tops to carry the load. So, not much of a power projector, more of a target.

Individual national air-forces may be small enough to overwhelm, if you have BIG carriers. But the EU and the US and the UK do not have small individual AFs, they have large collective ones.



The Poms sent 3 carriers to the South Atlantic and were still stretched, how many have the Russians got?


Well, the one they got has not been caught with its pants down like the Kitty Hawk keeps getting “exposed”.


HMS Kitty Hawk must be one of the new CVFs, then? I thought they were going to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales...



Plus, how many subs will the USN and RN send against the Kusnetzov CBG in a confrontation? One? Only slightly unlikely.


That’s a tad illogical. The announcement states that the sub that was shadowing Kuznetsov was tracked, targeted and chased away, it does not mention anything about if other subs that the presence of other subs was monitored.


Right. So they tracked one. I'm talking about a major, armed confrontation...not this reported event.



So, re-phrase my question. How could a ship that spent 90% of its life doing nothing hope to take on 3 or 4, or more, Los Angeles/Seawolf/Trafalgar class submarines?


With mission specific airborne sub hunters like IL-38 May? Or haw about search radar/torpedo armed Helix? And other numerous anti-submarine airborne platforms which get their targeting from ships in question?

Basic, text book stuff here, and that IL-38 was there locked and loaded to drop a torpedo on the intruder if it was necessary.


Yes. That one intruder. Again, I ask you, how will they do in a real, shooting war-type situation where they don't have a single smart-arse strolling along behind them, but a for-real anti-shipping strike of several NATO boats out to get them? If the Churchill-class Conqueror could sink Belgrano with dumb torpedoes designed in the '20s, what can a Trafalgar-class boat packing Spearfish do? Or a Virginia packing ADCAPs? Or four of them (or the highly unlikely scenario of all 3 Seawolfs at once)?

How will the AK CBG do if its ASW ships are busy dodging torpedoes capable of twice their own speed while also telling the helo pilots where to go and telling the driver of the AK which direction to turn in?

Spearfish: top speed of 80 kts (but candle burning VERY brightly...) range of 30nm.

I'm pretty sure sub drivers don't just launch them one at a time...

edit: damn quotes...

[edit on 20-12-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The USS Harry S Truman and escorts comprise of 1x CVN , 2 X CG (tico`s) 3x DDG (arleigh burkes) 1x fleet support ship and 1x 688 (LA class sub) with *part time* sailing with a Brit Type 42 destroyer (air defence) and a canadian multi role frigate.

the canadian ship is the only ship with any serious ASW features - the Arleigh burkes and tico`s are air defence ships - so for anti sub work they have 1x 688 and 1x foreign country ship (part time)

the russians sailed with 2 dedicated and modern asw ships (udaloy class) and at least 1 akula , with land based May`s available as well.

the Truman ACBG whilst great for stopping fighters and probably missiles- would be a `target rich environment` for torpedo`s.

[edit on 20/12/07 by Harlequin]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



No, I was thinking more of the continued situation vs-a-vis Abhkazia and there was that little piece of trade suppression vis-a-vis Georgian wine, but if you want to talk about internal Georgian matters, rather than Russian interference in Georgia, go right ahead...


Currently there are Georgian journalists, in Georgia, who are in the process of being bribed (not bailed!) out of jail because they reported on Saakashvilis’ personal security forces nigh arrests of opposition members. Care for a Fight Club discussion about the social engineering mechanics behind Orange Revolutions?

Pankisi gorge, Shevardnadze assassination attempt, (the ambush in which his armored Mercedes was hit by an RPG), Crimean resorts housing wounded Chechens, etc, care to go there or are we on the same page by now?

Your call, but I do get the drift.


Um, I'm pretty sure I typed in I then r then a, yes they all match, then finished with an "n". Which for those not looking for red herrings, would be next door to Saddam's former presidential seat.


Um, I’m pretty sure US supported Saddams I-raq in the bloody war against I-ran, (not I-pod), so those red herrings can keep minding their business.


Who cares about Sarin (except the Kurds and Japanese) in the 80s


Who cares about zyklon-b (Except for the Jews and Slavs) in the 40s?


when the big issue occupying George W Bush (who, according to wee Jock is roaring for a confrontation with Putin) is Iran's plutonium enrichment programme?


When the big issue was stripping Nazi Germanys advanced technology like Me-262, V1/2, jet/rocket engines, guided missiles etc.

Isn’t it interesting that Soviets had a dedicated recon group which searched and liberated those poor souls from concentration camps while American detachments were occasionally just stumbling on them?


Oh, wait, that just reminded me, hey, Jock, didn't W look Putin in the eye and judge him as "a man to do business with"?


In American English, “doing business” can mean anything from buying a stick of gum to running wars and killing people in their hundreds of thousands like in current Iraq.


iskander, get off the red herrings and actually read what I posted and what it was in response to. What has Saddam and sarin got to do with the US and Russia having a confrontation today?


That has to do with your understanding of provocations.

“And what Russia is doing in and to Georgia isn't enough of a provocation for economic retaliation?

Russia's sale of uranium to Iran isn't enough of a provocation?”

If arming a Mid East tyrant with Chemical weapon of Mass Destruction is not provocation in your opinion, then once again, none of us live in the glass house, so please mind of the rocks when you toss them all about.


And finally, Iskander, when did Saddam gas the Kurds and when did the US promise them air support? Halabja was in the 80s. No-Fly-Zones were next decade.


March 15 1988, South Iraqi Kurdistan, the town of Halabja falls to Peshmerga resistance fighters of Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, who are supported by Iranian revolutionary guards.

The next morning the Kurds were attacked with Chemical weapons, but as history has a tendency to be there for the ones who care to look for it, it was not the first time Kurds were attacked with gas.


Winston Churchill, the idol of western neoconservatives. As Secretary of War and Air and Colonial Secretary, he authorized the RAF in the 1920’s to routinely use mustard gas against rebellious Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq and against Pushtun tribes on the Northwest Frontier.


It gets better. Offitially Saddam was executed for that very reprisal attack.


At the time, Iraq and Iran were locked in the ferocious last battles of their eight-year war. Halabja was caught between the two armies that were exchanging salvos of regular and chemical munitions. Only Iran had cyanide gas. If the CIA official is correct, the Kurds were accidentally killed by Iran, not Iraq.


www.ericmargolis.com...

Hows this:


US Army War College: NO PROOF SADDAM GASSED THE KURDS!


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

It gets better;


not only did Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.


So getting back to this;


And finally, Iskander, when did Saddam gas the Kurds


Right here;


According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

• Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.


www.progressive.org...

Good enough?

My questions are still not answered, while I as always extend the curtsey of answering the questions I’m asked, care to return the gesture or good manners are out of style with you?

edit:

p.s.

Didn’t notice page update, thank you for the answers, and I will go over them in due time.



[edit on 20-12-2007 by iskander]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 




Really. Then what were all those photos of rusting subs tied alongside in Vladivostok and Ukraine we saw in the late 90s?


They were pictures of obsolete units!!!
When the Russian economy went belly up the navy did what was nescessary to maintain an effective fighting force. There submarines were given the highest priority, a large portion of there surface fleet was laid up, and new construction halted or slowed, a large number of submarines that were essentially obsolete anyway were stricken, these are the boats you see in the pictures!!

Old hotels,yankees,delta 1's,victors, they were sitting there rusting yes because the funds were not available to properley dipose of them. There rescue forces were underfunded also but all this was done to provide maximum funding to there fighting elements.




As I said, if the Kursk couldn't be trusted to operate safely and the rest of the navy couldn't be trusted to fish them out...


The Kursk was the newest of the Oscar 2's in the fleet, commisioned in 1994.
Let me make this very clear, the sinking of the Kursk was in no way the fault of the boat, it's material condition or the crew. Considering the size of the explosion it is remarkable that anyone was left alive to rescue, a testament to the sheer brute strength of the Kursk's engineering, if this explosion had occured on a western sub nobody would have survived the initial explosion, thats a fact.

The only part of your statement that is true is regarding them being rescued, yes the russian rescue forces were badly underfunded due to the economic turmoil of the 90's, but the submarines that were still in service were well maintained and highly effective fighting units.

The cause of the Kursks sinking was pinned on the liquid fuel element of one of her heavyweight torpedoes leaking and reacting with an external metal, this precipitated a warhead cook-off.

The Russians are by no means the first to lose a boat in this manner, both the British and the Americans have lost boats because of the use of liquid fueled torpedoes.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



Yes, I've read a full chronology of the Russian navy. I stand by what I said. Note well my first sentence. The Red Army crushed the Whermacht, the Red Navy did nothing.




My response;


Despite numerical superiority of Germans city was heroically protected by Russian NAVY along with ground forces. Russian NAVY saw many actions during WWII, one of war heroes was Marinesky who torpedoed several large
so Germany ships. His legacy is still very much alive.



The Soviets claimed to have sunk 323 merchant ships for a total of 936,756 tons along with 94 warships including three destroyers, 21 mine-sweepers, one torpedo boat, and a number of submarine chasers.

Postwar records from various Western sources including the Germans show the Soviets sank 108 merchant ships with a tonnage of 254,525 tons. They also sank 28 minor warships none larger than a minesweeper. In fact, the largest warship ever sunk by a Russian submarine was the destroyer HMS Vittoria by the submarine Pantera on 8/31/19 while the Vittoria was at anchor off the Seiskär Islands in the Gulf of Finland.
For this total, the Soviets lost at least 108 (there are discrepancies in their records as to exact losses and causes) submarines in return. Also note, that included in the ships sunk are 20 Turkish merchant vessels operating in that nation's coastal waters.


The run down;



Ships of the Soviet Navy

Submarines (309)
Destroyers (77)
Flotilla leaders (7)
Heavy cruisers (6)
Light cruisers (5)
Battleships (4)

Summary
408 warships of 6 types.

War losses
According to our files the Soviet Navy lost 137 warships during WWII (33.58%).


A run down on losses suffered by Allied fleets;


Losses by navy:

Royal Navy (647)
US Navy (391)
Soviet Navy (137)
French Navy (93)
Royal Dutch Navy (54)
Royal Hellenic Navy (26)
Royal Canadian Navy (24)
Royal Norwegian Navy (14)
Royal Australian Navy (13)
Polish Navy (12)
Italian Navy (7)
Free French Navy (5)
United States Coast Guard (5)
Brazilian Navy (2)
Royal Indian Navy (2)




Sourses;
uboat.net...
uboat.net...
www.neva.ru...
navalstory.com...

The biggest problem for Soviet NAVY was incredibly dense mining of the waters, which inflicted enormous damage to their fleet.

They did not have much of a chance to engage the Germans simply because they were constantly busy clearing all those mines and just getting out to where the fighting is, and while doing that suffering further losses to constant air attacks.


It was the RN slogging through the North Sea and losing men to supply Stalin, Stalin's ships were nowhere to be seen. Of course you could say that about the British Army and Leningrad...The only thing I have to grind is the truth.


Please send some of that truth grinding my way, I’d like to read about it.


““Why do Russians need a Black Sea fleet?” and the Russian commander replied “So we’ll never have to be asked such a question ever again.””


Could they be to do with futile military gestures that cost thousands of lives, then? That would be helpful.


No, that was a direct challenge to the English, telling them straight out that they no longer own the Black Sea.


Fine. The Soviets saw the early devestating effects of the U-Boats on British supply lines across the North Atlantic. The Soviets themsleves did basically squat blue navy-wise in WW2.


And why was that? I got stats, maybe you have something more substantial, so I’d like to see it.


Their riverine fleet was active as hell because they have such excellently big rivers on which to do stuff, like transport stuff and drive fast boats with big guns long, long ditances...


All true there, and I do surely agree with you.


After the war the Soviets developed a huge submarine fleet. A fleet which regularly deployed into the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. With large amounts of "success" I am led to believe. Why would it be doing that, except to be able to do it again in wartime? All the world could see the US carriers, where were the Soviet carriers? What Soviet carriers? Submarines were the name of their game.


Again, all true dead on and agreed upon.


Which is what the American character is pointng out to the British character in the dreadfully bad film adaptation of Len Deighton's Spy Story.


If you’re a Brit I’ll accept that as good humor. If not, a lucky shot is just a good.


pfft. Try understanding the topic. I've seen RN and Icelandic boats hull-scrape. And it was deliberate. That's not a superpower confrontation. It's chest-thumping.


Scraping hulls is one thing but taking critical damage which requires dry-dock repairs is entirely different. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.


Soviet pilots fought in Korea. Why didn't Truman put it on the font page of every paper in the world? Why did Harry tell General Clay not to drive to Berlin with a couple of bags of coal in his jeep?


You lost me there. Open confrontation with the Soviets spelled DOOM, and other then fierce resistance Berlin was for the Russians for all the obvious reasons.

Correct me if I’m wrong.


Ever seen how long it takes for a seriuosly degraded military (and the Red Army/Navy/AF weren't that good to begin with) to be worked up again?


Yes I did. After total WWI collapse of Germany, with on a decade their war machine was cranking out gear years ahead everyone else.

Their only surprise came in 1941 when they faced Sov tanks and fighters.


No matter how much money you've got.


When you’re being shot at, money is an object of concern only to the ones who are fleeing with sack of it, and to the small time thugs which will run barter based black markets when the occupation forces arrive.

Let’s not dilute our selves here.


Why don't you look at how well they did in Chechnya the first time around. The word was "suddenly". They are still years away from the ability to go anywhere and do anything special.


Not only did I “look” at how they were doing in Chechnya, I worked on some of the IED issues they were having there at the time. You are not up to speed on how things are there currently.

Occasional drive by attacks on CPs and a recent assassination which has more to do with organized crime then political issues.


Really. Then what were all those photos of rusting subs tied alongside in Vladivostok and Ukraine we saw in the late 90s? As I said, if the Kursk couldn't be trusted to operate safely and the rest of the navy couldn't be trusted to fish them out...


Actually I flew to Far East Russia on regular bases and seen it all with my own eyes.

You are simply repeating the usual stereotyped propaganda. Nothing wrong with propaganda when it comes to the masses of sheeple, but if you personally care just look into it.

As far as Ukraine, it was massive plundering. Corruption, money laundering directly by NY banks, dirty arms smuggling deals, IL-76s with their number painted over, organized crime working hand-in-hand with the “family”, etc

Kursk? Don’t even go there. The remarks you made make it clear that you simply didn’t that the time to educate your self on the topic thus lacking the basic decency of respect for the lives that were lost, and sacrificed.

Again, if you care to through around such half-baked accretions start a topic and I’ll meet you there.


Let's see. In the last thirty years, where have light carriers successfully projected power? Oh, the South Atlantic. So, where, in the Russian



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Again, if you care to through around such half-baked accretions start a topic and I’ll meet you there.


Let's see. In the last thirty years, where have light carriers successfully projected power? Oh, the South Atlantic. So, where, in the Russian "sphere" are there similar locations?


Right there, at HOME, protecting what’s theirs and not playing the old colonization game, aka “power projection” and using indigenous peoples as slaves to strip their natural resources in the name of progress and civilization.


Thanks for that, of zero help. Why don't you try counting the planes next time. So, my point (including the next bit)is this: Task Force South was operating at stretched capabilites and still was not sure of victory. What saved it was the distance the land-based planes had to fly. The AK, if having a go at EU targets, will not be so far from land-based jets and will not have other flat-tops to carry the load. So, not much of a power projector, more of a target.


Let’s see, so far Kitty Hawk has been flown DIRECTLY over by Russians what, 3 times? All while taking photos of crews panicking, running around and cutting fuel feeds cables from the tanker, and then e-malign those pictures directly to the Kitty Hawk.

Then we have that Chinese sub literally having to surface to let them know that they’ve been had.


When AK gets jumped then I’ll call it a target, but so far its group tracked and chased away the sub that was shadowing it.

Just things as they stand to date.


Individual national air-forces may be small enough to overwhelm, if you have BIG carriers. But the EU and the US and the UK do not have small individual AFs, they have large collective ones.


I miss the reason for pointing out the obvious on this one. What’s the point?


HMS Kitty Hawk must be one of the new CVFs, then? I thought they were going to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales...


You’re pulling my leg. Be careful, I wear leather boots and after a long ride I have to use a leg rest so the swelling goes down, and only then they can be pulled of, but there will be a bit of a natural odor there.


Right. So they tracked one. I'm talking about a major, armed confrontation...not this reported event.


Why? Are we in a state of “major, armed confrontation”? With this one I go on the current events, not hypotheticals.


Yes. That one intruder. Again, I ask you, how will they do in a real, shooting war-type situation where they don't have a single smart-arse strolling along behind them, but a for-real anti-shipping strike of several NATO boats out to get them? If the Churchill-class Conqueror could sink Belgrano with dumb torpedoes designed in the '20s, what can a Trafalgar-class boat packing Spearfish do? Or a Virginia packing ADCAPs? Or four of them (or the highly unlikely scenario of all 3 Seawolfs at once)?


Hypotheticals again, let’s stick to the facts, because otherwise will just spiral in UFO what ifs, what happened happened, an enemy sub did not get a chance to get a jump on the AK while Kitty Hawk is practically naked at this point.

Going over all kinds of possible large scale scenarios is useless in this case.


How will the AK CBG do if its ASW ships are busy dodging torpedoes capable of twice their own speed while also telling the helo pilots where to go and telling the driver of the AK which direction to turn in?

Spearfish: top speed of 80 kts (but candle burning VERY brightly...) range of 30nm.

I'm pretty sure sub drivers don't just launch them one at a time...


A single answer - cruise-missile delivered Shvkal-2M.


edit: damn quotes...


I feel your pain.


[edit on 20-12-2007 by iskander]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Come on Westy, we’ve been here before and you know better then to put up a show for the crowd.


Been here before? Umm… if you mean me asking for a source, then yeah. I don't see how asking someone for a source is "putting on a show". Thanks for it anyway, even thought I can't understand a single word.


Originally posted by Harlequin
The USS Harry S Truman and escorts comprise of 1x CVN , 2 X CG (tico`s) 3x DDG (arleigh burkes) 1x fleet support ship and 1x 688 (LA class sub) with *part time* sailing with a Brit Type 42 destroyer (air defence) and a canadian multi role frigate.


There is no way you could really know how many US/NATO SSN's are sailing as part of the Truman CBG or sailing in the vicinity. While the established minimum is at least one, there is no firm number to quote in this particular case.


Originally posted by Harlequin
…the Arleigh burkes and tico`s are air defence ships - so for anti sub work they have 1x 688 and 1x foreign country ship (part time)…


Umm… the Burkes are multi role Destroyers and do have significant ASuW capability, so do the Tico's, as do the carriers themselves. And the US also has several naval bases in the Mediterranean which host P-3 Orion's. It's obvious you have not done your research…

[edit on 20-12-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   


......The Russians would never use there carrier to attack another carrier battle group, the days of WW2 style carrier engagements are long past.

In todays modern navy, the carrier is in my opinion an obsolete platform.....

I, respectfully, disagree. I think the modern carrier group is about projecting force, no matter who the owners of said carrier fleet might be.

There are other carrier battle groups in existence, but none have the capabilities that the US groups do. I also agree with another poster that attacking a US battle group would be suicide.

My suggestion is that as long as more than one country has carriers and battle groups to support those carriers, group versus group battle is something that could be alive and well.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Yes on any given day, a first world's navy can do damage to another's navy. Subs are constantly stalking capital ships, that's what they do. They prod and test defences of their oponenets. They even stalk their friends in war games to gain an understanding of things. It takes quite a bit of skill to get a sub in range undetected, the smallest of things can give it away.

The article doesn't surprise me, both sides have that happen to them quite often, we just don't hear about it much. The Russian navy is not a pile of junk as many would imply, it still could hurt you given the chance.

I remember one guy I was talking who was on an attack sub. He mentioned that pretty much all they did was wait outside Russian harbors silently then follow right behind Russian Subs as they left port, never being detected till they broke off contact. Sub warfare is a real chess game. Bragging in newspapers about how good your detection methods are doesn't mean much. If a sub is successful, they don't brag about it in public, lest they lose their advantage.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 



Been here before? Umm… if you mean me asking for a source, then yeah. I don't see how asking someone for a source is "putting on a show". Thanks for it anyway, even thought I can't understand a single word.


Exactly. Every time I post a topic from a Russian source you attempt to cast doubt because you can’t read Russian, and like before I can only recommend auto-translators.

Since you pathologically don’t trust and question every single word I say, translate for your self.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 



I remember one guy I was talking who was on an attack sub. He mentioned that pretty much all they did was wait outside Russian harbors silently then follow right behind Russian Subs as they left port, never being detected till they broke off contact.


How’s that possible? Soviet/Russian sub harbors are so protected and lined with passive and active detection gear that any intruder will be immediately assigned to coastal defense.

If an American sub is caught with in Soviet/Russian territorial waters it will be fired upon, just as any Soviet/Russian sub in American waters.






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join