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

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

......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.

If your going to critisize my opinion please quote the entire opinion, dont pick out the pieces that suit your point. Here was the entire quote,

In todays modern navy, the carrier is in my opinion an obsolete platform, here I am only speaking if the carriers were to actually "fight" a real war against a first class adversary, for anything short of an all out war they still have there uses such as force projection and what I would call "gunboat diplomacy", nothing lights a fire up a governments ass quite like having a carrier battle group parked off there coast much like the way battleships were used pre WW2. But just as battleships proved in WW2 that they were extremely vulnerable to attack by aircraft, so I believe that carriers would be shown to be extremely vulnerable against submarines in any future war.

As you can see I quite adamantly stated that they do have purposeful uses up to anything short of an all out war with a first class naval power.
I specifically stated they useful for force projection.

I also agree with another poster that attacking a US battle group would be suicide.

Please read all posts before commenting to the contrary, further up the page I debunked the issue of U.S. CBG's being very well protected by there ASW assets.

Heres a link to a chinese sub that lifted the skirt of the Kitty Hawk.
Kitty Hawk got raped

This can very well be explained away,as the Yanks were just transiting to an exercise and there ASW probably wasnt fully worked up but this next link cant be refuted, the collins class HMAS Waller "sank" two 688's penetrated the carriers ASW defenses, got within firing range of the carrier and withdrew undetected, with the periscope pictures to prove it, an outright embarrasment considering this occured in an actual combat exercise and the U.S. had the almost priceless advantage of knowing the sub was in the area and actively hunting for the carrier, even with this knowledge they couldnt prevent there carrier from being "SUNK".

Collins nails carrier



[edit on 20-12-2007 by Tonka]

Also just to add salt to the wound heres a quick run down on how carriers have been doing against submarines over the years in exercises, also remember the fact that the American CBG's have the priceless advantage of knowing the enemy boats are close at hand and actively hunting there CBG's.

Twenty-three years ago during the 1981 NATO exercise Ocean Venture, an unnamed 1960s vintage Canadian diesel submarine “sank” the carrier USS America without once being itself detected, and a second unidentified vintage sub “sank” the carrier USS Forrestal.

What did we learn from this?

Eight years later, during NATO exercise Northern Star, the Dutch diesel submarine Zwaardvis stalked and “sank” the USS America again. Did the America just have problems? Well, in RIMPAC 1996, the Chilean diesel submarine Simpson “sank” the carrier USS Independence, and in 1999 during NATO exercise JTFEX/TMDI99, Dutch diesel submarine Walrus not only “sank” the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, but also “took out” the American exercise command ship USS Mount Whitney, plus a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, and the nuke fast attack USS Boise – all without herself receiving a scratch.

Then, during RIMPAC 2000, the Australian Collins Class diesel sub HMAS Waller “sank” two American nuke fast attacks and got dangerously close to the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. During Operation Tandem Thrust in 2001, HMAS Waller “sank” two American amphibious assault ships in waters between 200 to 350 feet deep, barely more than the length of the submarine itself, and an unnamed Chilean diesel sub “took out” nuclear fast attack sub USS Montpelier twice during successive exercise runs. A year later in October 2002, HMAS Sheehan successfully hunted down and “killed” the U.S. fast attack USS Olympia during exercises near Hawaii, and just a year ago in September 2003, in an unnamed (read “classified”) exercise, several Collins Class subs “sank” two U.S. fast attack subs and a carrier – all unnamed, of course. And a month later another Collins Class sub surprised and “sank” an American fast attack during another exercise.

Heres the link

If this doesnt prove the point of a carriers vulnerability ( yes including the super duper invincible yankee ones) I dont know what will.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Tonka]

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

 

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?

I don't care. That has nothing to do with what I said. It has nothing to do with my reply to Jarheadjock. It is just another red herring.

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?

Again, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the topic.

Your call, but I do get the drift.

No, you don't. You've demonstrated that repeatedly. Jarheadjock said the US and Russia were "raoring for a confrontation", his words. Well, I asked why current Russian activity hadn't been enough of a provocation for a president who is famous for six-gun diplomacy. Clearly the US is not "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.

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.

Again, I don't care (in terms of this discussion) what the US did with Saddam. That is a completely separate issue. Stop trying to drag it in here, where we are discussing Jarheadjock's assertion that the US is "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.

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?

Exactly my point. Why did you bring it up? It has nothing to do with Jarheadjock's assertion that...I hope by now you are starting to follow.

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.

Really? The US is, according to Jarheadjock, "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia over who stole more during Operation Paperclip? My, what a long memory you have, Grandma...

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?

Wasn't it interesting that the Soviets invaded Poland in 1939 and executed thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn woods? Get back on topic.

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.

No, it means he can be trusted to be democratic and also not get in the way of US interests. But I specifically brought it up because Jarheadjock asserted that...

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.

No. It has to do with your misunderstanding the current discussion and so does the next bit.

“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.

Arming a mid-east tyrant in the eighties has nothing to do with Jarheadjock's assertion that the US and Russia are "roaring for a confrontation" now. George is currently trying to do for Iran and uranium enrichment what he did for Saddam and WMDs. So, why, then, isn't Putin selling uranium to Ahmedinijad this week enough of a provocation? Especially given that, according to Jarheadjock, the US is "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.

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.

Thank you. Didn't see the CIA anywhere in that. Or US promises of air-support.

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.

Wow. My, what an amazingly long and yet unsurprisingly useless memory you have Grandma. Now you've brought a long-dead British Prime Minister's actions from BEFORE he was PM into an argument about the CURRENT presidents of Russia and the US.

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

Saddam shelled Halabja in retaliation for RAF bombings in the '20s? My, what a long memory HE had, grandma.

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...

And George W, Vlad P and bull-roarers fit into that where, exactly?

Hows this:

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

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Of zero use to the debate about W, Putin and noisy children's toys.

It gets better;

It couldn't possibly, but go ahead anyway...

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.

See. I knew it couldn't.

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:

Thank you. 1985 through 1989. When is it that the US and Russia, according to Jarheadjock, are "roaring for a confrontation"? I'm pretty sure my calendar says 21/12/07 today.

Good enough?

Of zero relavancy to Jarheadjock's point.

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?

As I said, your questions are of zero relevance to Jarheadjock's assertion that the US and Russia are "roaring for a confrontation. Which is the point you keep missing. The US' dealings with Saddam have nothing to do with Russia's dealings with Ahmedinijad.

Saddam is a completely off-topic red herring that is wasting everybody's time. As is Mikhail Saakashvilli's attempts to muzzle free speech. At no point did I champion Saakashvilli. All I did was highlight Russia's treatment of Georgia. Russian "peacekeepers" in Georgia are a separate issue to Georgian internal dissent in Tbilisi.

edits: ing quotes

[edit on 20-12-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 20-12-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 20-12-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by iskander
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.

Yes. Russian naval units transferred to land operations. I specifically said *at sea*. I don't care about half-submerged ships acting as ack-ack batteries.

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.

So, where does that refute my generalisations? The biggest success they had wqs during the White/Red Civil War and it was in the Baltic? What has that to do with WW2 (which I was specifically talking about) or blue-water?

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.

So, they also claim non-combatant 3rd party ships as "prizes"...

The run down;

Ships of the Soviet Navy

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)

So, no % figures then? Never mind that the Soviets lost 137 ships and the RN alone lost 647. Including the Empire and Dominion navies the total goes up to 686.

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

Then obviously their fleet was in harbour, not at sea.

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.

Again, in harbour, not at sea. You have yet to refute my generalisation that the Soviets did very little fighting on open water.

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.

You're putting it up here yourself, thanks for that.

““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.

Exactly. I was using a quote British tv black comedy about WW1 and the futility of Hague's strategy to illustrate the military effectiveness of the Baltic Sea fleet's sortie to Port Arthur. Your quote was of no relevance.

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.

Your stats are just fine here. Lost 137 versus 647. You have to be in it to lose it, or win it.

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.

No. but I do like Deighton. Which is why I dislike this adaptation. Except for that scene.

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.

Of course. The point is that none of these "confrontations" (which, in my opinion, were nothing of the kind, just the kind of BS testosterone that Tom Cruise displays at the start of Top Gun) ended in shots being exchanged by nations. Yes, a B52 was shot down, yes, a U2 (or two) was shot down, but where was the war?

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.

Exactly (for the DOOM bit). Um, I'm not sure what you mean in reference to Berlin. I was talking about the Airlift...

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.

Suggest you revise your numbers. In 1927 (within a decade of armistice) the Germans most assuredly were not cranking out gear years ahead of everyone else. During the Anschluss (a decade later than your date) many German tanks broke down on the highway before reaching Vienna.

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

Wrong. their first surprise was in 1940 whan they couldn't kill Matilda 1 tanks. And Soviet fighters in 1941 were no match for 109s and 190s. Neither were Soviet tanks. the T 34 was not yet the standard front-line tank of the USSR. In 1941 *all* the victories were German.

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.

Really? When you have no transport because you have no funds, when you have no armour because you have no funds money is of incredibly high concern to grunts being shot at.

Let’s not dilute our selves here.

I'm not. You were the one who brought up Putin's petrodollars, not me.

cont'd

edit: ing quotes...

[edit on 20-12-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

 

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.

I said "first time around", not "currently". Tell me, what happened to the first batallion into Grozny?

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

Which wouldn't be happening to "your" proxies if you hadn't gone back in. No, I don't intend to debat Chechen adventures in the last two decades, suffice it to say it was no hippy commune of free love immediately before Putin re-invaded in '99.

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.

Excellent. A first-hand witness.

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.

With a grievance. When I'm being a sheep, then I'll let you know. I asked a question, based on the evidence I had.

As far as Ukraine, it was massive plundering.

Yes, we knew that already. Hollywood had a field day making movies about stolen nukes.

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

That doesn't explain what all those boats were doing covered in rust. Or say anything about Vladivostok.

Kursk? Don’t even go there.

Why not? It's purely relevant.

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.

Really? Well, take the time and educate me, then.

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

Go right ahead. You're the one who wants to edumacate me.

reply to post by Tonka


Yes, our Collinses are the newest boats in the world. And being diesels, they are quieter than nukes.

You'll note that I specifically left "other" navies and their boats out of the equation.

to any interested parites: Sorry for this, I hope to be done soon.

Originally posted by Tonka
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?

Um, no, I think. No, I definitely didn't say that. I'm pretty sure I said something like "fare better"...

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

Well, it would be if I was talking about Collinses...

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?

No, not entirely.

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

Again with all these assumptions about my Americanness...why is that? I never make assumptions about YOUR Americanness. Or lack of it. Anyway...

Heres the link

That's okay, the Australian government just told itself (well, the previous one did) that F-18EF was the best available strike-fighter in the world. I usually take about 10-15% off the top of these "prophet of doom" exercises because I hold the opinion that the military is its own lobby in the US, painting the picture darker than it is so it can get new toys. But that's just my personal quirk...

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!

Again the idea that I'm a Yank.

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

Why should the argument be limited? If the Seawolf and Virginia are what would be aiming at AK, or defending the Ronnie, then they belong in the comparison.

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

Uh-huh. And Phalanx, Goalkeeper and the like would have nothing to say about anti-ship missiles? Let alone CAP and AWACS...Now you've just brought the air-defence frigates squarely into the equation, not the ASW boats.

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

Yes, as noted numerous times, diesels are quieter than nukes when submerged.

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.

Right. So we don't know if they were on ASW duty or if they were transiting to other duties. The fact is, we don't know.

Oh then theres always HMAS Waller that drilled 2 ( thats right TWO) 688's

Bloody good driving by our skipper, then.

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

Well, it was a bloody long time ago, these days, when you consider that HMAS Melbourne was retired in 1982.

reply to post by xmotex


The russians were being crushed in ww2 untill the U.S. gave them war supplies and opened another front! This forced the germans to divert resourses away from their russian effort. Hitler had Stallin by the throat!

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

I don't care. That has nothing to do with what I said. It has nothing to do with my reply to Jarheadjock. It is just another red herring.

Do you know why I keep referring people to fallacyfiles.org? Let me show you!

Red Herring;

Alias:
Ignoratio Elenchi ("ignorance of refutation", Latin)

Irrelevant Thesis
Type: Informal Fallacy
Etymology:

The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Exposition:

This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy.

www.fallacyfiles.org...

HowlrunnerIV, you your self attempted “to throw the hounds off the scent” with your irrelevant and off topic post about economic sanctions against Russia.

I’ll quote you again,

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?

It is indeed yet another “red herring”, but it is you who’s been dragging it all over this thread, so please do mind that cheap tricks don’t work here.

I openly challenged you to take up the issues which you brought up in a separate threat as they have NO RELEVANCE to this topic, and what is your response?

Again, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the topic.

Shall I refer you to the fallacyfiles.org again or just start the endless loop of counter questions?

No, you don't. You've demonstrated that repeatedly. Jarheadjock said the US and Russia were "raoring for a confrontation", his words. Well, I asked why current Russian activity hadn't been enough of a provocation for a president who is famous for six-gun diplomacy. Clearly the US is not "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.

This is to all participants of this thread, please use fallacyfiles.org and identify the type of the fallacy presented above.

HowlrunnerIV, feel free to work on that you self.

Again, I don't care (in terms of this discussion) what the US did with Saddam. That is a completely separate issue. Stop trying to drag it in here, where we are discussing Jarheadjock's assertion that the US is "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.

Sorry, doesn’t work that way. There are many ways to retreat, and this is not a good one.

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

Your words, your herring.

Exactly my point. Why did you bring it up? It has nothing to do with Jarheadjock's assertion that...I hope by now you are starting to follow.

Laughable. Keep working on it though.

Really? The US is, according to Jarheadjock, "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia over who stole more during Operation Paperclip? My, what a long memory you have, Grandma...

Red herring again? Do you want to start another topic or only call for it when it’s convenient for you?

Wasn't it interesting that the Soviets invaded Poland in 1939 and executed thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn woods? Get back on topic.

So now we see your “convenient” topics, which clearly show your position. I can do this all day.

No, it means he can be trusted to be democratic and also not get in the way of US interests. But I specifically brought it up because Jarheadjock asserted that...

Wrong and irrelevant. Again, if you care to, I can show you how, but you’ll just run again.

No. It has to do with your misunderstanding the current discussion and so does the next bit.

I’m pretty sure that I posted this topic, so you are implying that I know not what I do?

Arming a mid-east tyrant in the eighties has nothing to do with Jarheadjock's assertion that the US and Russia are "roaring for a confrontation" now. George is currently trying to do for Iran and uranium enrichment what he did for Saddam and WMDs. So, why, then, isn't Putin selling uranium to Ahmedinijad this week enough of a provocation? Especially given that, according to Jarheadjock, the US is "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.

I don’t know, this topic is about Russian fleet and submarines and stuff, what are you talking about?

Thank you. Didn't see the CIA anywhere in that. Or US promises of air-support.

Then educate your self, or you are in the age when you expect everything to be brought and spoon fed to you?

Wow. My, what an amazingly long and yet unsurprisingly useless memory you have Grandma. Now you've brought a long-dead British Prime Minister's actions from BEFORE he was PM into an argument about the CURRENT presidents of Russia and the US.

You keep referring to me as “grandma”, and I would appreciate if you kept your personal issue to your self, this is not a therapy session.

Saddam shelled Halabja in retaliation for RAF bombings in the '20s? My, what a long memory HE had, grandma.

See what I’m saying? You’re making me uncomfortable. Please don’t get me involved in your family issues, just leave me out of it.

And George W, Vlad P and bull-roarers fit into that where, exactly?

OIL that’s been pumped out of Iraq by both US and Russian companies at this very moment, but again, that’s another topic.

Thank you. 1985 through 1989. When is it that the US and Russia, according to Jarheadjock, are "roaring for a confrontation"? I'm pretty sure my calendar says 21/12/07 today.

My pleasure, you’re welcome, and I’ll remind you as well;

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.

I was just being courteous, but apparently you were throwing a red herring. It’s OK though.

As I said, your questions are of zero relevance to Jarheadjock's assertion that the US and Russia are "roaring for a confrontation. Which is the point you keep missing. The US' dealings with Saddam have nothing to do with Russia's dealings with Ahmedinijad.

My quatsion were addressed to you, not “Jarheadjock's assertion”, and you know it perfectly well. You keep throwing this irrelevant stuff around, why exactly?

Stull like this;

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...

Saddam is a completely off-topic red herring that is wasting everybody's time. As is Mikhail Saakashvilli's attempts to muzzle free speech. At no point did I champion Saakashvilli. All I did was highlight Russia's treatment of Georgia. Russian "peacekeepers" in Georgia are a separate issue to Georgian internal dissent in Tbilisi.

All true, yet you continue to derail this topic by “hijacking” the thread with repeated fallacies.

Please stay with the topic, or as I said many times before, feel free to start your own thread and I’ll meet you there.

Edit:spl


[edit on 21-12-2007 by iskander]

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


This is mildly amusing.

Wrong. their first surprise was in 1940 whan they couldn't kill Matilda 1 tanks. And Soviet fighters in 1941 were no match for 109s and 190s. Neither were Soviet tanks. the T 34 was not yet the standard front-line tank of the USSR. In 1941 *all* the victories were German.

KV1 heavy tank.

KV-2 Heavy Artillery Tank.

BT-7 fast tank. (Japanese on Mongolian-Manchurian border, Finland and Poland 1939.)

MiG-1/3 Fastest fighter/high altitude interceptor in 1941.

The list goes on, but it’s another topic.

Really? When you have no transport because you have no funds, when you have no armour because you have no funds money is of incredibly high concern to grunts being shot at.

That confirms your misinformed opinions like this – “In 1941 *all* the victories were German”.

Stalin’s forces were positioned in an offensive posture and Hitler’s Barbarossa caught them by “surprise”, followed by a massive Soviet retreat.

The entire industrial sector was disassembled and moved by rail beyond Ural Mountains. Naturally money was no object, because only survival is.

I said "first time around", not "currently". Tell me, what happened to the first batallion into Grozny?

It was knowingly sent to be slaughtered by 7 rings of highly organized and extremely well armed Chechen forces.

Here’s my question to you, who ordered the attack and why?

Which wouldn't be happening to "your" proxies if you hadn't gone back in. No, I don't intend to debat Chechen adventures in the last two decades, suffice it to say it was no hippy commune of free love immediately before Putin re-invaded in '99.

I beg your pardon, my proxies? Putin re-invented to “eradicate the nest of terrorism”. At leas he got the job done and killed the ones he promised to kill, we’re still up to our necks in crap and Osama is only a ghostly legend.

That doesn't explain what all those boats were doing covered in rust. Or say anything about Vladivostok.

Because other then corruption and sabotage, they were no longer viable military assets. The collapsed economy could no longer support the massive Soviet system, thus the majority of Soviet fleet became useless to poorly funded Russian Navy of the 90s.

Why not? It's purely relevant.

Kursk was “hosting guests” while it was on a mission performing complicated testing program. No civilians were supposed to be on board, yet against orders they were.

After her sinking the surviving crew was sacrificed in the usual Russian manner. God rest their souls.

Really? Well, take the time and educate me, then.

Go right ahead. You're the one who wants to edumacate me.

I’ll start another thread for that one.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by Tonka

 

Yes, our Collinses are the newest boats in the world. And being diesels, they are quieter than nukes.

You'll note that I specifically left "other" navies and their boats out of the equation.

Ummm, well no actually there not the newest boats in the world and havnt been for a long time, even then technically they are a derivative of the kokums gotland design anyway which is even older.

By the way you should also be aware of the many problems associated with these boats when first entering service? (fixed now by the way)

Well if you look at the date of that RIMPAC exercise youll see the numbers 2000 in front of it, most of the boats problems were not resolved by that time including the fact they sounded like an underwater rock concert.

I have to admit I'm taken aback that you are an Australian, although I'm guessing your from sydney? Thats where most the immigrants seem to congregate.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

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?



No, not entirely.

Wow what a great answer, I actually went to a lot of effort to explain my opinion vis a vis yours, I backed it up with links and relevant information and all you can come up with is that??

Go back to Primary school.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

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

Again with all these assumptions about my Americanness...why is that? I never make assumptions about YOUR Americanness. Or lack of it. Anyway...

Heres the link

That's okay, the Australian government just told itself (well, the previous one did) that F-18EF was the best available strike-fighter in the world. I usually take about 10-15% off the top of these "prophet of doom" exercises because I hold the opinion that the military is its own lobby in the US, painting the picture darker than it is so it can get new toys. But that's just my personal quirk...

Once again I apologize for thinking you were American, but that report details the vulnerability of carriers to submarines, something that is quite relevant to this thread.

That report specifically rebukes your comments that a yank CBG would fare better than a Russian CBG by showing the extent of American carriers caught in "compromising" situations. Thereby negating your comments regarding American CBG's being better trained at ASW.

Not only have you failed to defend your position on this matter which is relevant to this thread, you then start babbling on about Australias procurement of F-18's?

What the hell has that got to do with this thread?

If you cant objectively answer questions/opinions relevant to the subject and provide substantiated proof in the form of text/links, then dont bother.

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


Well, it was a bloody long time ago, these days, when you consider that HMAS Melbourne was retired in 1982.

Once again I apologize for thinking your a yank, but what the hell has your answer got to do with an American CBG's anti submarine training, once again your failing to objectively back up your opinion and trying to be a smartass, to deflect attention away from the fact that your knowledge on the current topic is well #!@# all.

THIS IS STARTING TO GET RATHER ANNOYING GET BACK ON TOPIC OR DONT POST.

This has been an.... interesting read.

Lets try to stick to the situation in the Mediterrenean and the topic.

reply to post by Daedalus3

This has been an.... interesting read.

Lets try to stick to the situation in the Mediterrenean and the topic.

Good idea!

Anybody knows what weapon packages AK has its Flankers flying on them?

Uh-huh. And Phalanx, Goalkeeper and the like would have nothing to say about anti-ship missiles? Let alone CAP and AWACS...Now you've just brought the air-defence frigates squarely into the equation, not the ASW boats.

Phalanx, Goalkeeper and the like aren't much use against something as fast as a Granit. USN types I know like to refer to the Phalanx as the "abandon ship alarm", because by the time anything gets that close, you're already screwed.

AEW will help detect the attack sooner, maybe even guide SM-2's in (I believe they can do this these days). But CAP may not be much use, we're talking about a missile flying at Mach 2.25 sustained. An F-18 isn't going to catch it. And it wouldn't be one missile, but several linked salvos of 4-8.

The USN doesn't use frigates for AAW, that's the job of the Aegis Tico CG's and Burke DDG's. Aegis was designed specifically to counter swarm ASCM attacks, so I imagine they would be able to take out quite a few with their Standard's. I wouldn't want to bet my life on them taking out all 24 of them though - presuming it's only a lone Oscar II attacking.

reply to post by xmotex


Agreed

reply to post by xmotex


While I agree that the PHALANX is pretty useless, the RAM does the job quite nicely, the ESSM is made specifically to counter supersonic, maneuvering anti-ship missiles, and the SM-6 is basically the already agile SM-2 with a longer range and active radar, not only active radar but active radar directly from the AIM-120, which might I add is a very effective missile.

My point is that while not impervious to anti ship missiles, a CVBG is probably better protected than generally accepted on this forum.

Now I may have totally missed something when reading this thread, but have we even confirmed that the sub shadowing the Kuznetsov was of American origin? Or what class? It could very well have been a Chinese sub or one from the UK.

As an admiral once said - a CVN is the best protected ship in the fleet - but nothing is `immune` to attack.

SeaRAM is a stinger with a sidewinder seeker - and whilst better than seewizz the russian system is better imo

videos.emule.com...(guVLqfiCfO4

i do remember a dtailed breakdown on the flaws in SeaRAM by someone on here - the short range does go against it.

Howlrunner, let me explain it,

1. Those rusting subs, are obsolete, so they are "decomissioned"
2. The reason they were not melted down, is because The Russian Gov didn't have the money to do that in the 90's, so they sat there and "rusted"


IMHO I believe that Russia was actually doing that to make it look like Russia is weak, inorder to make the west "THINK" "Russia can be taken in the future" but thats just my opinion.


Also in a maggazine I read in Oct/Nov The Admiral incharge of the USS Scorpion investigation back in 68/69 admitted in a 1983 interview he/U.S. Navy lied, and that in reality the Soviets DID sink the "Scorpion", and the "USS Threshre" for the sinking of the K-129, I'll go find the Magazine and post the issue so you can read it for your self.


[edit on 22-12-2007 by Lambo Rider]

[edit on 22-12-2007 by Lambo Rider]