It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
...and whilst better than seewizz the russian system is better imo...


The link is not working properly, but please elaborate and why you think so.


Originally posted by Harlequin
i do remember a dtailed breakdown on the flaws in SeaRAM by someone on here...


If you can find this post I’d like to see it to as I cannot seem to recall it.


Originally posted by Harlequin
...the short range does go against it.


First, SeaRAM is a last tier defense, as a carrier is defended with multiple systems each overleaping the other to ensure continuous coverage. As such the SeaRAM would only have to deal with the remaining missiles that mange to reach the end zone while targeting the carrier. It has enough range, speed, launch capability, to ensure multiple rounds downrange at significant distances from the carrier. This way you do not risk potential fragmentation of the ship. Also, while SeaRAM would be used as a last tier defense other systems such as CAP, Standard, ESSM, ECM/EW and hard countermeasures can still be used at the same time. This is the ability of the AEGIS system, to link, guide and control an incredible amount of assets simultaneously and continuously with overlapping coverage on each inbound target.

But in case anyone is wondering, SeaRAM Block 2 has a range of around 11 nautical miles.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by WestPoint23]




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Lambo Rider,

It is my belief that the Scorpion was sunk by the Soviets for actions done in the North Atlantic.
I have seen the Huge two page article taken out in the local newspaper explaining what happened in the Scorpion with the runaway torpedo.

I stood back and looked at the two pages and said ..this is a smoke screen. Someone wants desperately for the public to believe this story. A whole two pages out of a newspaper is not cheap.

As to the Thresher ..she was lost on a sea trial after undergoing repairs in a Navy Yard up north.

The very intresting thing which came out of the Thresher loss is the SUBSAFE program in upgrading and controlling processes in construction and repair. This SUBSAFE program is still in effect today. This does not seem like the kind of program instituted due to a combat type loss. It indicates that the Navy realized that they had a significant problem in process control during construction and repair of their boats.

I was in the control room of a boat under construction many years ago and overhead two supervisors speaking of the company Raytheon who had several people onboard the Thresher when she went down. For a number of years afterwords Raytheon would not send people out on sea trials as a result of this loss.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Khastan is multi platform system - both gun and missile the `best of both worlds` for last ditch defence

it was around a year - 18 months ago - so i too haven`t got a link - but you did participate
im sure


and SeaRAM i know is a last ditch system - heck if the carrier has to start shooting them off them the entire defence has been breached and its a brown trousers moment - i was mearly saying that searam isn`t the be all and end of all of fleet defence as some people on here make it out to be.

give me a multi barreled laser please



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
If your handle isn't "iskander", feel free to skip.


Originally posted by iskander
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!


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,


Yes, please do. But, first, why don't you read my first post on this and relate it back to what jarheadjock said? Or is it too much trouble? Tell you what, I'll stick it in here for your.


Originally posted by jarheadjock
Very interesting, as the US is, Russia is on the tip of its feet, roaring for an excuse to get into a battle, namely they want it instigated by the US or its Euro. allies.




(me)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?



(you)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.


Seems on topic to me. Now, jarheadjock's slightly mis-aimed punctuation gives the impression that both sides are looking for an excuse, when, in actual fact, he means the Russians are trying to provoke the US into an aggressive act that will give them (the Russians) the chance to retaliate. So, why isn't Putin's sale of uranium enough of a provocation to George? All discussion about Saddam has SFA to do with that question? A question which was posed to show why I don't believe the US are "roaring for a confrontation".


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?


My response was to repeatedly tell you that you were barking up the wrong tree and hadn't understood my question. As I've just proved. So, even although you had the chance to save face, you continued to discuss irrelevancies.


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


I don't need to retreat.



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


Your words, your herring.


My words questioning Jarheadjock's assertion.



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. They show that the Soviets can be painted good or bad. My "convenient" topic merely shows your "convenient" topic to be well short of complete truth. No less, no more.



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.


Correct and perfectly relevant to what jarheadjock said.



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?


Hmm. Well, let's look again at what I read and responded to...


Originally posted by jarheadjock
Very interesting, as the US is, Russia is on the tip of its feet, roaring for an excuse to get into a battle, namely they want it instigated by the US or its Euro. allies.


So, er, yes.



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?


Well, see if you can follow here - it's tricky -, Someone, maybe you, posted a story about a naval event. Then someone (jhj) said this "event" was part of a pattern in which the US and Russia were "roaring for an excuse to get into battle". Someone else (me) questioned that statement and gave proof (Georgia, Iran). You then decided to talk about separate issues to the "provocation" (Saddam). So, who went off-topic?



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?


Er, I know I can be unusually slow in the morning if I've been at studio late at night, but your post gave no proof of your assertion, instead it proved mine. Read it again.


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.


"My, what big eyes you have, Grandma."
"All the better to see you with."
"My, what big teeth you have, Grandma." (Has it really been that long since you heard a fairy tale?)



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.


Ah, maybe you were a little uncomfortable about the truth I spoke as well, you know, the bit in bold.



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.


Really, George and Vlad and JHJ's "roaring for an excuse" are to do with the RAF bombing Iraq in the '20s, Saddam shelling Halabja in the '80s in retaliation for that bombing and Iraq's failure to deny oil to the superpowers today?



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;


No problem, as long as you admit that the Kurds didn't rise against Saddam in Halabja in the '80s in response to US promises of CAS that was subsequently denied, therefore allowing Saddam's unimpeded shelling of the city. As I said...



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.


Really. You got YOUR dates wrong and I'm the one throwing red herrings when I point this, among other errors, out?



As I said, your questions are of zero relevance to Jarheadjock's assertion that the US and Russia are "roaring for a confrontation.



My quatsion were addressed to you, not “Jarheadjock's assertion”, and you know it perfectly well.


Yes, and my questions were addressed to his assertion. Which you (repeatedly and) still refuse to admit.


You keep throwing this irrelevant stuff around, why exactly?


It's kinda funny that my questions went to the heart of what he said and yours didn't, but you then accuse me of going off-topic.



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.


Um, "hijacking"? Who, exactly, brought Saddam into the argument? Who brought the Georgian President's actions into the argument?

edit: sp

[edit on 24-12-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Not quoting here, so...

BT-7 tank was a waste of time. Panzers ate them for breakfast. KV1s were used in such low numbers they were outmanouvred and overwhelmed before they could do anything. Not much of a (nasty) surprise, as you insinuate. MiG 1s and 3s were shot out of the sky in waves. The MiG 15 was faster and had a higher ceiling than Sabre, didn't do it much good.

No funds = important, find out about the Philippine Army at the moment. Hell, how long ago was it people on this board were shouting about Iraq-bound units up-armouring their Humvees with scrap steel?

In 1941 all the victories were German. Whether you're a moron and ignore military advice about posture and deployment, whether you're shifting to the Urals doesn't matter. When did the Germans suffer a defeat prior to the gates of Moscow? (which has nothign to do with my comment about money).

Grozny: A moron, because he was stupid. It is a (highly) simplistic argument, but the Russians have always carried out recon by death toll. Uneccesary, stupid policy. But, I was getting to the state of Russia's military.

Proxies: Me reading too much into your statement that you regularly flew to the Far East (kida ironic, given my later indignation). I know why Putin went back in. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it. I'm not debating that. I'm saying that it exists and I'm saying I don't believe he has accomplished "getting rid of the terrorists". Yes, Basayev is gone, good bloody riddance, but Maskhadov was also "eliminated" and he was no terrorist. If you're not Russian, ignore "your" and substitute "Russia's".

Vladivostok: Yes, that explains it. And my point. But I wonder why you say Russia couldn't afford to scrap them. If they were diesels then you just sell the steel "as is, where is" and the buyer is responsible for transport. If they were nukes, okay, that's different. Still, it exactly agrees with my assertion about the (then) state of the Russian Navy, so, I can't have been falling for too much "propaganda" can I?

Kursk: Ah, so it wasn't material, it was human error. Stupid human error, at that. So how does that invoke faith in the Russian nav's abilities to operate? (A bit like a US sub captain surfacing into a Japanese boat...)

New thread: fine. U2U me when you do.

Tonka:

Collins: Doesn't matter what they're based on, they are newly built and developed on from the original. However, there may be more recently-constructed boats out there. (and yes, I know they are Swedish-based).

Yes, being an Aussie I am well aware of the "teething troubles".

And finally, why would you assume I am an immigrant? Because I put an Amerasion in my avatar? More assumptions leading you further from the truth. (Immigrant? Yes, but so are all people who aren't "black". Sorry, born and bred, true-blue, dinky-di Aussie. I drink beer (VB, Coopers, Boags), bbq my own food, know the rules to cricket, barrack for St Kilda, support Holden in the V8s and watch Bathurst every year.) (er, I also think Brocky was a legend and Steve Irwin was a w*%^er, the same for Steve Waugh and Shane Warne respectively)

News flash: My answer stands. You asked, I asnwered. I did it quickly and simply. I don't need to back it up to refute yours. It is what it is, it is not a wholesale refutation of your answer. Nor does it undermine your very reason for being.

Gov't report: Yes. Great. Very detailed. Wow, look at those details. So many details. And specific ones, too.

Okay, seriously. F18s are to this argument as...well...no. Bad choice of grammar style. We recently had a thread all about how the Indian AF beat the USAF in an exercise and how the USAF needed shiny new toys. Much of the thought was of the "USAF are trying to scare Congress" line. As I said, I tend to agree with that. F18s? Similar thing, I don't always believe the military when they play prophet of doom. I said that.

Time to recalibrate your responses.


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?


Just explained that, had thought it was obvious.


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


But I wasn't doing that, was I? And I didn't set out to do it, either, did I? I specifically (well, I thought it was pretty specific) made it obvious my answer was opinion, not "fact".

Sorry, I did quote. And again...


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,


Very little. But it is bang on target for your question, which wasn't about American CBGs.


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.


Yes, you would read it that way. Whereas, as I pointed out, I was bang on target and scored six points.


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


If you don't like it when I am specifically too specifically on-topic, that's not my problem.

As for dodging...I suppose you would read it that way. As for what my knowlegde is...I'm not a submariner, or a frigate driver, so ASW isn't my first topic of knowledge, but I find it passing strange that the USN would specifically fail to train and equip for the single biggest threat it faced for 50 years. Exceedingly strange.

As for knowing SFA, well, I guess knowledge of the only time a nuke boat has sunk an enemy is particularly irrelevant...your call and you've made it.

edit: 2 replies
and quotes

[edit on 24-12-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 24-12-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
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 an Admiral admitted in a 1983 interview the 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]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



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



The link is not working properly, but please elaborate and why you think so.


All of this has been discussed her before, so please use the sources listed there;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It’s unbelievable how stubborn some people chose to be even after things can’t get any clearer.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



Seems on topic to me. Now, jarheadjock's slightly mis-aimed punctuation gives the impression that both sides are looking for an excuse, when, in actual fact, he means the Russians are trying to provoke the US into an aggressive act that will give them (the Russians) the chance to retaliate.


Because Russian companies are doing BUISNESS with Iran by building their nuclear power plants, which is permitted by international laws and agreements.

The only provocation was made by Bushes administration.


So, why isn't Putin's sale of uranium enough of a provocation to George? All discussion about Saddam has SFA to do with that question? A question which was posed to show why I don't believe the US are "roaring for a confrontation"


Because it’s with in the LAWS of international trade agreements, while pre-emptive strike on a country based on manufactured evidence (Casus belli), is ILLIGAL, and CRIMINAL.


My response was to repeatedly tell you that you were barking up the wrong tree and hadn't understood my question. As I've just proved. So, even although you had the chance to save face, you continued to discuss irrelevancies.


This is my favorite part: “As I've just proved”. Dear HowlrunnerIV, you arguments are null.

Jesus Christ was self proclaimed as well you know, but so was Manson.

If you are comfortable with crowing your self then enjoy the crown, but remember, there’s always that nose picking kid that’ll say “look, the King is naked!”.


Someone else (me) questioned that statement and gave proof (Georgia, Iran). You then decided to talk about separate issues to the "provocation" (Saddam). So, who went off-topic?


This is the last stop of this marry-go-round.


"My, what big eyes you have, Grandma."
"All the better to see you with."
"My, what big teeth you have, Grandma." (Has it really been that long since you heard a fairy tale?)


What medications are you on? Seriously, I’m considering talking about it with my doc, maybe I’ll give them a try. What is it, lithium, stabilizers, inhibitors, neuronton?


Ah, maybe you were a little uncomfortable about the truth I spoke as well, you know, the bit in bold.


Oh please, these names should be more then enough to stop this nonsense, Curtis Lemay and Robert Mcnamara. Talking about “uncomfortable”.


Really, George and Vlad and JHJ's "roaring for an excuse" are to do with the RAF bombing Iraq in the '20s, Saddam shelling Halabja in the '80s in retaliation for that bombing and Iraq's failure to deny oil to the superpowers today?


Do you play checkers or dominoes? I’m pretty sure you’re not a card player, you can’t count that well and your bluffs are shapeless.

I don’t know about checkers, but I did see a world championship in dominos, just so you know.

I hate chess, it’s just too brutal, but I like to play, so let me retort –> USS Liberty, and on that note KASPAROV, especially how he got kicked out like a little wet kitten.

He should have played Nardi a bit to see what position he was in.

Moving on.


No problem, as long as you admit that the Kurds didn't rise against Saddam in Halabja in the '80s in response to US promises of CAS that was subsequently denied, therefore allowing Saddam's unimpeded shelling of the city. As I said...


I beg a pardon, but did I announce my self as Kermit the Frog somewhere during this conversation?


Really. You got YOUR dates wrong and I'm the one throwing red herrings when I point this, among other errors, out?


There was an episode of “Family Guy” on yesterday, in which a Donkey (republican one I believe), argued with a reporter, and after endlessly repeating NO, it predictably began to heehaw.

Needless to say, I’m not a republican, and I’m positively a human for that matter.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



BT-7 tank was a waste of time. Panzers ate them for breakfast. KV1s were used in such low numbers they were outmanouvred and overwhelmed before they could do anything. Not much of a (nasty) surprise, as you insinuate. MiG 1s and 3s were shot out of the sky in waves. The MiG 15 was faster and had a higher ceiling than Sabre, didn't do it much good.


Do you make this stuff up as you go?

Please be cyberenvironmentally friendly, and don’t pollute ATS waters with such nonsense.


No funds = important, find out about the Philippine Army at the moment. Hell, how long ago was it people on this board were shouting about Iraq-bound units up-armouring their Humvees with scrap steel?


Relevance? Soviet Union, not CORPORATE America, WWII, 21st century? Never mind, really, don’t bother.


In 1941 all the victories were German. Whether you're a moron and ignore military advice about posture and deployment, whether you're shifting to the Urals doesn't matter. When did the Germans suffer a defeat prior to the gates of Moscow? (which has nothign to do with my comment about money).


The Art of War – an organized retreat is much greater challenge then an organized assault.

The Life of War – there are no organized retreats through civilian territories, no standing battles are to be fought, and the perusing enemy must be slowed down by all means, even if it means sacrificing of civilian life.

Every encounter before Moscow was to stall German advance and buy time to pull forces up to the defensive lines.

[qote] Grozny: A moron, because he was stupid. It is a (highly) simplistic argument, but the Russians have always carried out recon by death toll. Uneccesary, stupid policy. But, I was getting to the state of Russia's military.

This is where I have to cut it short and say that you are ignorant on this topic. I personally know people that fought in Chechnya, on both sides actually, I do know what really happened at “minutka” and why.

Please keep out of this simply out of respect to the ones that had the misfortune to be there and luck to survive it.


Proxies: Me reading too much into your statement that you regularly flew to the Far East (kida ironic, given my later indignation). I know why Putin went back in. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it. I'm not debating that. I'm saying that it exists and I'm saying I don't believe he has accomplished "getting rid of the terrorists". Yes, Basayev is gone, good bloody riddance, but Maskhadov was also "eliminated" and he was no terrorist. If you're not Russian, ignore "your" and substitute "Russia's".


On the flip side - Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, I’ll stop here.


Vladivostok: Yes, that explains it. And my point. But I wonder why you say Russia couldn't afford to scrap them. If they were diesels then you just sell the steel "as is, where is" and the buyer is responsible for transport. If they were nukes, okay, that's different. Still, it exactly agrees with my assertion about the (then) state of the Russian Navy, so, I can't have been falling for too much "propaganda" can I?


Far East Russian in the 90s was the Wild West. The Mayor of Magadan was a Russian Mafia boss (in his 30s at the time), and only recently he got his time.

Kremlin had very little control over the region because of Chernomyrdin. Look into that one, he’s something else.

Colombians tried to buy one of the subs for smuggling their “product” if you remember, so any kind of “dealing” with sub/ship scrapping was a hot item. Large ships were sold and towed to the Chinese, and a lot of people made pretty good money on those deals.


Kursk: Ah, so it wasn't material, it was human error. Stupid human error, at that. So how does that invoke faith in the Russian nav's abilities to operate? (A bit like a US sub captain surfacing into a Japanese boat...)


Sure, just like Chernobyl and repeated reactor stalling. No sir.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I have been musing on this article from the OP on page one for some time now.

What I have concluded is that this is a textbook political propaganda type article made for public consumption. It is crowd cheering. let us get on the bandwagon tailored for public consumption.

This is not to say that most nations dont do this very thing...they surely do.

To my limited knowlege ..this type of post or news reporting concerning American fleets is very seldom if ever done. Little is reported about such incidents to the American press. The public/public has little need to know what is actually going on out there. Even in the case of collisions..when I read the newspaper reports here ,I consider them highly suspect. Sanitized for public consumption.

What I find missing from this discussion is the hint of any submarine traveling with the fleet or CBG here. I would think that a CBG would have a submarine or two involved in this type of incident. The crux of the report is of surface vessels and an aircraft being involved in the chase.. not a submarine. I merely note here the lack of reporting concerning friendly submarine involvement.

Also It occurs to me that the sound signature of this carrier are well known by most nations with any capability. A submarine attempting to infiltrate the group would not be intrested in the sound signature of an aircraft carrier. They are among the loudest vessels out there. So for what were they looking??

This ..to me is the tack..that some of you should be following ..not a history lesson...chest thumping et al.

Just a concept for your consideration,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Orangetom1999,

IIRC there were no reports of CBG SSNs in the detection and successive chase of PLAN Song class subs infiltrating USN CBGs and JMSDF vessels..

I believe the JMSDF and USN chasing elements were airbrone a surface vessel ASW units..

Correct me if I'm wrong though..



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


Correct Daedalus,

I merely note the lack of any mention of SSNs. I would think that a CBG would have at least one or two traveling with them at all times. It would just be prudent. I mention only the absence of this in the article for the consideration of the readers.
As is the case here they are airborne and surface ASW assets ...no mention of SSNs ..."that they told you about."

And also as stated...the infiltrating submarine would not be intrested in the signature of the Aircraft carrier itseslf...this would undoubtedly and already be known...but only to know its position ..as carriers tend to be one of the noisiest ships out there in launch and recovery modes...also they have huge propellors on them.
I ask the question under the conditions I describe...what were they curious about concerning this CBG??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


action - reaction , to get an idea of training and capability of the 2007 russian surface fleet



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Isn't the Kusnetzov assigned one Akula SSN?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
While not directly on this topic...I wanted to mention that I have been using Google Earth quite a bit lately.

I investigated the island atoll of Diego Garcia. Very intresting what is at anchor in the atoll. Also what is visable on the air base and the antenna/satellite farms around the atoll.

While I was at it I began to search the coastline of India looking for fleet bases. I found a city called Mumbai. This appears to be a large commercial port and also in the mouth of the harbor is a Naval Facility. Lots of cruisers and submarines ported here. I counted 8 submarines and numerous cruisers and support ships..oilers and the like. Two carriers but If I read correctly one of them is a museum.

Also very much of intrest to me was the commercial facilitys. As I scanned the coast of India I noted may locations of Commercial shipping and the port facilitys to support the same. Containerized cargo and also in many places hauling coal or aggregate..mining type cargos. And of course all this means large fuel/oil terminals too.

Also of great intrest to me was the dockyards and shipbuilding facilitys in Mumbai. This area has what appears to be significant facilitys for working on ships. I noted what appeared to be two submarines sitting up on large barges or floating docks. Also noted was the number of drydocks and inclined shipways where ships can be winched out of the water and on to these inclines.

India has much larger and more extensive facilities than I had originally thought for ships.

I will ,in process of time, be doing the same for other nations in this area. This is going to be very intresting.

Orangetom



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Well Orangetom,

I think you should start a new thread for that..
I will be a regular participant I assure you.
There's a lot to share w.r.t. naval presence in the Indian Ocean Region.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Apologies to all others for the he said/she said...


Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 

Because Russian companies are doing BUISNESS with Iran by building their nuclear power plants, which is permitted by international laws and agreements.

The only provocation was made by Bushes administration.


That's right. Russian companies are doing business with Iran. Which would fit directly into Jarheadjock's envisioned "provocation" of the US in an attempt to provoke an armed incident by the US, which would then allow the Russians to retaliate with real shooting.

Russia wants a fight. But they can't pick it, that would look bad. George is a cowboy who goes in all guns blazing. So, how to get George to pick the fight? Hey, let's deal with Iran at exactly the same time George is trying to get a UNSC resolution against Iran, that should really piss him off.



So, why isn't Putin's sale of uranium enough of a provocation to George? All discussion about Saddam has SFA to do with that question? A question which was posed to show why I don't believe the US are "roaring for a confrontation"


Because it’s with in the LAWS of international trade agreements, while pre-emptive strike on a country based on manufactured evidence (Casus belli), is ILLIGAL, and CRIMINAL.


No. It's because George does not want to pick a fight with the Russians. We've already seen what he thinks about international law if it doesn't go his way: ignore it.



My response was to repeatedly tell you that you were barking up the wrong tree and hadn't understood my question. As I've just proved. So, even although you had the chance to save face, you continued to discuss irrelevancies.


This is my favorite part: “As I've just proved”. Dear HowlrunnerIV, you arguments are null.


Only if you can't follow from A to B to C logically.


Jesus Christ was self proclaimed as well you know, but so was Manson.

If you are comfortable with crowing your self then enjoy the crown, but remember, there’s always that nose picking kid that’ll say “look, the King is naked!”.


And thank god for him. But doesn't change the fact that you wanted to talk about Saddam, instead of Iran. Why didn't you put this

"Because it’s with in the LAWS of international trade agreements, while pre-emptive strike on a country based on manufactured evidence (Casus belli), is ILLIGAL, and CRIMINAL"

first and save yourself all that trouble. This ^^^ is exactly on the topic I followed. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds has nothing to do with it. As I said here:


Someone else (me) questioned that statement and gave proof (Georgia, Iran). You then decided to talk about separate issues to the "provocation" (Saddam). So, who went off-topic?



What medications are you on? Seriously, I’m considering talking about it with my doc, maybe I’ll give them a try. What is it, lithium, stabilizers, inhibitors, neuronton?


You've never heard of Little Red Riding Hood? I am amazed. Or maybe you have heard of it, but it was so long ago that you've managed to forget it...any medication which can help you is beyond my knowledge.



Ah, maybe you were a little uncomfortable about the truth I spoke as well, you know, the bit in bold.


Oh please, these names should be more then enough to stop this nonsense, Curtis Lemay and Robert Mcnamara. Talking about “uncomfortable”.


Yes. Macnamara was part of the planning department that assessed the damage LeMay's strategy was doing to Japan. Macnamara was then LeMay's boss after JFK made him SecDef. Macnamara was the initial architect of US strategy in VN. So what. Has nothing to do with current US-Russia relations OR Saddam gassing the Kurds at Halabja.



Really, George and Vlad and JHJ's "roaring for an excuse" are to do with the RAF bombing Iraq in the '20s, Saddam shelling Halabja in the '80s in retaliation for that bombing and Iraq's failure to deny oil to the superpowers today?


Do you play checkers or dominoes? I’m pretty sure you’re not a card player, you can’t count that well and your bluffs are shapeless.


See, if you ever played poker (which I find boring) you would actually know what a bluff is. I wasn't bluffing. I spoke the truth. Which is that the RAF bombing villages in Iraq before WW2 has nothing to do with Saddam gassing Halabja. Just as Saddam gassing Halabja has nothing to do with Putin attempting to goad W into something stupid. Which is what Jhj was talking about.


I don’t know about checkers, but I did see a world championship in dominos, just so you know.


Great. Then you can relate to US strategic thinking circa 1962.


I hate chess, it’s just too brutal, but I like to play, so let me retort –> USS Liberty, and on that note KASPAROV, especially how he got kicked out like a little wet kitten.


I love chess, it's wonderfully focussing. So the Israelis sank a US boat. So what. What has it got to do with Putin/Bush relations?


Moving on.


Please do.



No problem, as long as you admit that the Kurds didn't rise against Saddam in Halabja in the '80s in response to US promises of CAS that was subsequently denied, therefore allowing Saddam's unimpeded shelling of the city. As I said...


I beg a pardon, but did I announce my self as Kermit the Frog somewhere during this conversation?


It's not easy being green...if it talks like a muppet and it acts like a muppet...You were wrong. Not only did you line the wrong ducks up, but they weren't in a row and you didn't hit any of them. Which is why:



Really. You got YOUR dates wrong and I'm the one throwing red herrings when I point this, among other errors, out?


There was an episode of “Family Guy” on yesterday, in which a Donkey (republican one I believe), argued with a reporter, and after endlessly repeating NO, it predictably began to heehaw.


Time to take a look in the mirror. Again. Your dates were wrong. And they were used in the wrong context. Saddam DID NOT gas the Kurds at Halabja or in the general Al-Anfil campaign because they were rebelling against him AFTER the US promised them air-support which then failed to materialise. At the time the US were supporting Saddam because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There was no promise of air-support. There was no US-inspired rebellion. The peshmerga were allied with Iran.


Needless to say, I’m not a republican, and I’m positively a human for that matter.


I wonder why it's so hard for you to admit error, then.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 


BT-7 tank was a waste of time. Panzers ate them for breakfast. KV1s were used in such low numbers they were outmanouvred and overwhelmed before they could do anything. Not much of a (nasty) surprise, as you insinuate. MiG 1s and 3s were shot out of the sky in waves. The MiG 15 was faster and had a higher ceiling than Sabre, didn't do it much good.


Do you make this stuff up as you go?


Only from my reading.


Please be cyberenvironmentally friendly, and don’t pollute ATS waters with such nonsense.


Well show me which bit is nonsense...



No funds = important, find out about the Philippine Army at the moment. Hell, how long ago was it people on this board were shouting about Iraq-bound units up-armouring their Humvees with scrap steel?


Relevance? Soviet Union, not CORPORATE America, WWII, 21st century? Never mind, really, don’t bother.


Is it really so hard for you to get from A to B? We're not talking about the CCCP, we're talking about CIS. We were talking about the effect a lack of money has on armed forces' equipment and troop morale. You said there is no correlation. There are two examples of exactly where it does have an effect.


In 1941 all the victories were German. Whether you're a moron and ignore military advice about posture and deployment, whether you're shifting to the Urals doesn't matter. When did the Germans suffer a defeat prior to the gates of Moscow? (which has nothing to do with my comment about money).



The Art of War – an organized retreat is much greater challenge then an organized assault.


Ignores the fact that there shouldn't have been a need for an organised retreat. I'd hardly call the numerous encirclements of millions of Soviet troops either organised or a retreat.


The Life of War – there are no organized retreats through civilian territories, no standing battles are to be fought, and the perusing enemy must be slowed down by all means, even if it means sacrificing of civilian life.


What? First you quote Sun Tzu to say organised retreats are the hardest thing to manage. Then you quote another source to say they don't exist, but at the same time MUST happen. What? (or did you type "Life" when you meant "Art"?) Plus, where was the scorched earth policy in the Ukraine, Baltic Republics and Byelorussia to deny the Germans materials?


Every encounter before Moscow was to stall German advance and buy time to pull forces up to the defensive lines.


Well, duh. Nobody runs back to an unprepared defensive line (and if the Soviets knew the Germans would be coming sooner or later, why weren't the prepared defenses prepared earlier? A: Uncle Joe, my point originally). But it wasn't the prepared defences that saved Moscow. It was the weather. In Russia it always has been. Had Mussolini not gone adventuring in Greece, what might have happened in the Soviet Union without Old Man Winter there to save Uncle Joe. Ignores the fact that that virtually every encounter with the Germans was ineptly managed. Delays are not created by gifting easy victories.



Grozny: A moron, because he was stupid. It is a (highly) simplistic argument, but the Russians have always carried out recon by death toll. Uneccesary, stupid policy. But, I was getting to the state of Russia's military.


This is where I have to cut it short and say that you are ignorant on this topic. I personally know people that fought in Chechnya, on both sides actually, I do know what really happened at “minutka” and why.

Please keep out of this simply out of respect to the ones that had the misfortune to be there and luck to survive it.


Oh ho, I should respect the commander who destroyed that first batallion? I don't think so. And my comment on Russian military history is dead on. Too often through Russian/Soviet history recon has been by bodycount. Even the great (and that is not sarcasm) Marshall Zhukov marched his men across minefields. Tell me, should I also not comment on Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy out of respect for the grunts on the ground? I know them, too, and bashing Bush in no way disrespects them. Stupid argument to make.



Proxies: Me reading too much into your statement that you regularly flew to the Far East (kida ironic, given my later indignation). I know why Putin went back in. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it. I'm not debating that. I'm saying that it exists and I'm saying I don't believe he has accomplished "getting rid of the terrorists". Yes, Basayev is gone, good bloody riddance, but Maskhadov was also "eliminated" and he was no terrorist. If you're not Russian, ignore "your" and substitute "Russia's".


On the flip side - Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, I’ll stop here.


Good, because once again you've misunderstood my words. What has Prime Minister, General (ret), Yitzhak Rabin got to do with Akhmad Kadyrov, Ramzan Kadyrov or Alu Alkhanov?

I was (originally) talking about attacks on these people directly and indirectly through attacks on their administrations/forces. Those three names are the ones I was thinking about when I said "proxies". The situation in Chechnya in general was what I was referring to.



Vladivostok: Yes, that explains it. And my point. But I wonder why you say Russia couldn't afford to scrap them. If they were diesels then you just sell the steel "as is, where is" and the buyer is responsible for transport. If they were nukes, okay, that's different. Still, it exactly agrees with my assertion about the (then) state of the Russian Navy, so, I can't have been falling for too much "propaganda" can I?


Far East Russian in the 90s was the Wild West. The Mayor of Magadan was a Russian Mafia boss (in his 30s at the time), and only recently he got his time.

Kremlin had very little control over the region because of Chernomyrdin. Look into that one, he’s something else.

Colombians tried to buy one of the subs for smuggling their “product” if you remember, so any kind of “dealing” with sub/ship scrapping was a hot item. Large ships were sold and towed to the Chinese, and a lot of people made pretty good money on those deals.


So where was I wrong?



Kursk: Ah, so it wasn't material, it was human error. Stupid human error, at that. So how does that invoke faith in the Russian nav's abilities to operate? (A bit like a US sub captain surfacing into a Japanese boat...)


Sure, just like Chernobyl and repeated reactor stalling. No sir.


Um, are you agreeing or disagreeing? My point here is limited. The Kursk was now some time ago, giving the Russian Navy time to implement training and procedural changes caused by the Kursk sinking. Which means the Kursk is not necessarily a good indicator of the weakness of the Russian Navy. But it still raises questions. Questions which do not immediately give positive answers.

edit: quotes (I really should be more careful with those damn things...)

edit: Again!

[edit on 7-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 7-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 



Only from my reading.


Of what, comic books?


Well show me which bit is nonsense...


I’ll do this one more time, and from that point I’ll just stay away for the sake of keeping ATS forum clean and mature.


BT-7 tank was a waste of time. Panzers ate them for breakfast.


By now it is obvious that you are doing this on purpose. ATS forum is here to “Deny Ignorance”, and you CONSISTENTLY misinform ATS readers by stating false facts and retorting with fallacies when proven flat out wrong.

Why are you doing it?


In one on one combat the BT-7 proved that it was the equal of the Panzer III, but Soviet tank units were often inexperienced unit commanders who were outmatched by their German counterparts. Poor crew training and lack of spare parts also worked against the BT-7 tank fleet, and by late 1941 many of the tanks were either destroyed or captured. In fact, the German army also made use of captured BT-7 tanks, but had to mark them so that they could avoid friendly fire incidents.


www.russianwarrior.com...



KV1s were used in such low numbers they were outmanouvred and overwhelmed before they could do anything. Not much of a (nasty) surprise, as you insinuate.


KV1s overwhelmed? LOL! I’ll save you and everybody the reading time, so just watch the moving pictures and LISTEN.

Here’s a short clip of what the Germans though of it and how they dealt with it;



www.youtube.com...


[qute]MiG 1s and 3s were shot out of the sky in waves.[/qute]

MiG-1/3 had the HIGHEST kill-to-loss ratio of ALL Soviet fighters through the ENTIREE WAR!

This fact is so obvious and well known that I’m not even going to bother with a source.

Again, you either have a biased agenda to slander Soviet/Russian topics or purposefully misinforming the ATS community. Knock it off.


The MiG 15 was faster and had a higher ceiling than Sabre, didn't do it much good.


Same thing. BASIC FACTS!!!!!! MiG-15 was NOT faster then F-86. Stop polluting this forum!!!!!


What? First you quote Sun Tzu to say organised retreats are the hardest thing to manage. Then you quote another source to say they don't exist, but at the same time MUST happen. What? (or did you type "Life" when you meant "Art"?) Plus, where was the scorched earth policy in the Ukraine, Baltic Republics and Byelorussia to deny the Germans materials?


Sun Tzu, a professional warrior born from a warrior class. WORLD War II was not a war of the warrior classes, it was a WORLD WAR, and that includes civilians.

“Life of War” came from Leningrad and Stalingrad. That means that there are no “military operations”, the life it self is turned into war in every aspect and that means pure SERVIVAL.

There was no “scorched earth” policy, but when it was necessary there were specific orders to take provisions from civilian population when Soviet Army was retreating, with authorized use of force.

German records documented that population was already starting when SS was busy massacring civilians and burning down the country.

Also, I doubt that you’d care, but my personal diligence recommend that you look into what “salting the earth” means, maybe then you’ll understand.


But it wasn't the prepared defences that saved Moscow. It was the weather. In Russia it always has been. Had Mussolini not gone adventuring in Greece, what might have happened in the Soviet Union without Old Man Winter there to save Uncle Joe. Ignores the fact that that virtually every encounter with the Germans was ineptly managed. Delays are not created by gifting easy victories.


Really? Man, the Russian must literally be either the luckiest people in the world, or had some sort of a weather controlling ability since the times of the Golden Horde.

At this very moment I can’t even count how many times Russian victories are attributed entirely on luck vast lands and weather.

Talking such nonsense can only mean that in order to conquer Russia one has to be a good card player, have a really big gas tank and a double Doppler weather radar like the ones they have at TV stations.

I guess Hitler and the entire German army were just idiots with short memory and forgotten what happened with Napoleons army, or the Teutonic knight Crusade into Russia.

HowlrunnerIV, you might really have something there, Russian magical weather control powers is what allowed them to survive every single attempt to conquer their lands…


Oh ho, I should respect the commander who destroyed that first batallion? I don't think so.


What was his name and whos order was he forced to follow? Answer that one, know it all.



And my comment on Russian military history is dead on. Too often through Russian/Soviet history recon has been by bodycount.


I have an original and unpublished biography of a 19 year Soviet recon paratrooper that details his recon missions, behind enemy lines, under sniper/MG and mortar fire, in teams of two or even by him self, testing river beds and taking water levels, counting haystacks to identify and mark the ones that in actually are camouflaged MG/heavy gun positions, etc.

Where do you get you ideas from?


Even the great (and that is not sarcasm) Marshall Zhukov marched his men across minefields.


You ever bothered to find out why? Do so and then we’ll talk.


Tell me, should I also not comment on Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy out of respect for the grunts on the ground? I know them, too, and bashing Bush in no way disrespects them. Stupid argument to make.


See above and figure out what is the difference between necessary but horrible sacrifices, however barbaric they might appear to Western mentality, and then compare the need for survival to the basic good old greed driven war profiteering.

It’s not an argument; it’s a philosophy of life.


Good, because once again you've misunderstood my words. What has Prime Minister, General (ret), Yitzhak Rabin got to do with Akhmad Kadyrov, Ramzan Kadyrov or Alu Alkhanov?


Yitzhak Rabin retired General? Where have you been?

Yitzhak Rabin – an assassinated "martyr for peace".

What does it have to do with “Proxies”, Yasser Arafat, terrorism etc? That’s ok, I’ll slow down a bit so you can get back on your little tricycle and catch up, but I seriously doubt that you care to.

I do apologies for the sarcasm, but I don’t appreciate when my time is not valued.


I was (originally) talking about attacks on these people directly and indirectly through attacks on their administrations/forces. Those three names are the ones I was thinking about when I said "proxies". The situation in Chechnya in general was what I was referring to.


Chechnya, Sunny Muslims that practice Wahhabism and are to this day not recognized by any International Muslim community, are the proxies of which power?

I personally investigated their IED black market auction sites back in 1999, do you know where their financing was coming from to make the judgments that you’ve made?

” Far East Russian in the 90s was the Wild West. The Mayor of Magadan was a Russian Mafia boss (in his 30s at the time), and only recently he got his time.”


So where was I wrong?


Where did I say that you were?


Sure, just like Chernobyl and repeated reactor stalling. No sir.


Chernobyl was an act of sabotage by a man who was deeply disturbed by the death of his daughter, who blamed the hospital for her death, the men that after the tragedy was openly lashing out against the entire Soviet system, and was a prime target for “turning” and “conditioning”.

Chernobyl is the most devastating example of direct sabotage of the 20th century. 9/11 is the first in the 21st century.

Kursk “hosted guests” during a critical testing exercise. That’s the equivalent of bringing a tourist along on the first moon landing mission.


Um, are you agreeing or disagreeing? My point here is limited. The Kursk was now some time ago, giving the Russian Navy time to implement training and procedural changes caused by the Kursk sinking. Which means the Kursk is not necessarily a good indicator of the weakness of the Russian Navy. But it still raises questions. Questions which do not immediately give positive answers.


With all honesty so far this is the most comprehensive paragraph you wrote.

The main point with Kursk is that Putin was willing to risk his presidency by knowingly sacrificing the lives of the surviving crewman, in order to protect what ever secrets Kursk held.

Like other peoples, historically Russians have a history of committing willing and forced sacrifice in order to survive.

Back in WWII while transferring fighter planes from one airbase to another, weather turned bad and a flight of two fighters mistakenly landed on the German held airfield.

Fighters rolled to stop, pilots exited the planes. One of the pilots was an officer while the other was a trainee.

Germans approached the pilots, the officer and the Germans realized the situation, then Russian officer drew his pistol, shot the trainee and then him self. Both were buried by the Germans with full military honor and a monument with a record and acknowledgment of the occurrence.

Unfortunately Kursk was the unwilling but necessary sacrifice that had to be made, and even with great anger and sorrow Russians accept it, which is clearly reflected by Putins total approval rate of over 90%.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
p.s. Who in the hell is Linda Park if you don’t mind me asking?

Just to throw something into the pile before I close the window;


KV heavy tank screened with additional armor of the 107th Tank Division of the Red Army is moving to its initial attack position. Some tanks of the same model were hit even 200 times but none of the hits could lead to a lesion defeat, despite it was attacked by all artillery systems. Western Front, July 1941.


rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join