Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

Originally posted by twisted_fate

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Originally posted by airteck

Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

NO, THEY CANT

fire enough missiles at those ships....most will get through, so yes, they could destroy nato ships that quickly.

people seem to really underestimate Russia, you'll regret that.

Russia is incapable of destrying a fleet in 20 minutes.......thats never going to be happening......However I can see where they could do some damage and thats only because of the proximity of their fleet to NATO's and any preemptive strike possibilities.

In war, there are sadly no winners. Unless by "winners" you mean "the ones that beat the **** out of the enemy." And by that, you would of course mean the one with superior weaponry. And by that you would mean Russia. Just admit it to yourself. We have more people. They have more toys. Number of people means nothing in a war like this (for now) hypothetical one.

People need to drop the "evil Russian" cold war mentality and realize that underestimation of the enemy means us = screwed if it really comes down to it.

reply to post by calcoastseeker


When the stark was attacked, the Captain had shutdown the CIWS because the humming of the radar power supply on the bulkhead adjacent to his stateroom interfered with his sleep!



[edit on 30-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

Corrected where I said Phalanx instead of CIWS, drain bramage.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

reply to post by mattifikation


Thank you for your calm voice of reason here! It does not go unappreciated. I have to wonder who is behind the keyboard of such statements as the one above, what kind of mind thinks that this dire situation is 'nice'?!

reply to post by airteck


Well, I'm glad you think it's nice. While we're on the topic of "smartening up," do realize that you have just said that what's nice about it is that the world gets to go back to living in fear of annihilation. Nice, because everyone will just be scared of dying, but supposedly not actually dying. Nevermind that the Cold War came within minutes of going hot several times, only a "smartened up" person would take that into consideration when deciding whether or not a new Cold War is "nice."

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
When you say "trying to find a diplomatic resolution" I assume you mean issuing new threats of punishment and sanctions every day, while encouraging the Baltic States to turn against Russia and host US missiles in their territory.

Punishments and sanctions the West suggested: Kicking them out of the G8, halting diplomatic ties with NATO, issuing condemnations, having diplomats demand that they cease fighting, considering sanctions. You know, basically considering everything in the book besides "Threaten to nuke them," which WAS the response they got back from Russia.

Turning the Baltic States against Russia? I'd say Russia turned the Baltic States against Russia. If they weren't "against" (in reality, afraid of) Russia to begin with, they would probably not have agreed to host any weapons now would they? Besides, Allies share weapons. That's the purpose of Allies. If allies aren't going to share weapons, then what's the point in having them to begin with?

reply to post by 2stepsfromtop

Then why on earth did the the USA push Georgia into attacking Osstetia?

According to Putin, they did. In reality, they urged Georgia not to attack, and even went as far as flat out telling Georgia they would not recieve U.S. backing. When two demons give to different stories and you choose to believe one, you are still believing a demon. However, in most democratic countries one is innocent until proven guilty, so I ask for your evidence that the U.S. told Georgia to start a war.

Why did the USA have Special Forces and other "advisers" on the ground in Georgia?

Because Georgia is a U.S. ally (because of their assistance in Iraq, not because of their location.) They have a relatively new government, and they clearly have a new army with little training, experience, and equipment. It's generally the stated purpose of the Special Forces to train and equip U.S. allies. They were in Georgia during the conflict, because they were there before the conflict, taking on exactly that task.

And why on earth does the USA believe that they have a right to the oil that is shipped via Georgia from Iran to Russia and other countries in the region?

The U.S. did not make any claim to that oil, although Europe made quite a stink about it. In reality, Russia has effectively attempted to make a claim to that oil by attempting to shut it off with a bombing campaign - Basically saying, screw you Europe, I'm taking your oil and burning it.

reply to post by johnsky


Once again, allies share weapons. Unless you have some evidence that these materials were supplied with a note that said, "Here, these are so you can start fighting again right away," then you don't have any reason to be questioning these transactions. The reality is, I doubt you have any evidence that these things were provided after the cease fire at all - at least, none that you didn't get from Russia.

reply to post by pexx421


This will be fun. :-)

thats funny matt, i thought western powers INSTIGATED this conflict.

So where you there when we did this instigating, or did you just take the word of Putin, the former KGB agent, as truth?

And of course, russia is supposed to just stand by while the west tries to install a missile defense system that would "supposedly" make russias nuclear arsenal obselete?

Ten interceptors do not make 2,000 missiles obsolete, nor do they give the U.S. any "first strike" ability by somehow negating Russia's state of the art detection systems which would allow them to fire off all 2,000 of those missiles as soon as the U.S. fired off all 1,500 or so of theirs. Numbers are approximated to the best of my memories. :-)

at the same time that the west is now attempting to advocate nuclear first strike as an option in future engagements??

Nuclear first strike has been allowable according to Russia's doctrine since 1993. I'm sure you have some stupid reason why it's okay for Russia to have a first strike doctrine, though. If you care to share that reasoning, I'd be happy to ignore it like the flag-waving jerk this Anti-American web site is turning me into. :-)

The way i saw it,

Oh, so you were there, and you saw it? So you actually are "in the know" about which of the 200 conflicting stories we've heard are truth and which ones are made up? Well that changes things, I was unaware that you "saw it."

russia advanced to the defence of ossetia

And it almost took a full day for their full response to arrive on the scene, suggesting of course that they couldn't possibly have been sitting right on the border waiting for an excuse to attack...

retaliated by destroying MILITARY targets

Such as pipelines that take oil through Georgia and on into other countries in Europe? Or train bridges? Or capturing sea ports that vital imports and other shipments come in by?

(as opposed to georgias attacking almost all civilians...with western supplied weapons)

Weapons like the BM-21 Grad Multiple Rocket Launcher, designed by the Soviet Union? My, how western those weapons are! In reality, had Georgia been using Western supplied weapons, they would have had more accurate missiles and been more capable of hitting the rebel factions that had been mortering them for several years, and they could have done so with fewer civilian casualties.

and then pulling back and holding positions.

Russia is the one that "pulled out," but somehow still holds all of the positions it had taken previous to "pulling out."

If russia was really "annihilating its neighbor" as you say, the whole of Georgia would have been destroyed in half of the first day.

At this point in time, Georgia is utterly defenseless against absolutely anything. Their capitol city is pretty much the only area that has any of Georgia's own military left. I would call that annihilated. If you wouldn't, then your opinion can hardly be taken seriously.

Stop pushing your propaganda and fearmongering upon a population who can read the truth for themselves, and stop changing the facts around...thats called lieing

Stop selecting one side of the story and assuming it's the truth, like so many of the other sheep here at ATS. Then stop listening to the news out of Russia and assuming it is "fact." And then stop accusing me of lying and trumpeting up your opinion as the "truth" when your opinion is backed by no more evidence than mine is - that's called being sanctimonious. :-)

I enjoyed responding to that last post most of all. It required the least amount of thinking. :-)

Does anyone else have any light-revealing and insightful new bits of rhetoric they'd like to pull out of Russia's mouth and try to jam into my ear?

reply to post by space cadet


You're welcome. I do not like constantly having to take up the role of "U.S. defender," as I'm well aware that this country has done some shady stuff. But I certainly detest the fact that the vast majority of ATS's user base seems to have utterly hooked itself on some of the most biased, one-sided rhetoric about my country that I've ever seen.

When these people start squawking about how the U.S. is evil and every other person, place, and government on the planet is some kind of hero standing up to us, it sort of leaves me looking like a flag-blinded imbecile for standing up for my country and pointing out that we do NOT have the only government with flaws.

Plus... saying the "Cold War" was "Nice" and it's "Nice" to have a new one is just downright sickening to me. What would be "Nice" is if there were no bullies on the playground. It seriously doesn't take much... less than 200 countries in the world, that means that if about 200 people would just start getting along, the rest of us could too. 200 people getting along... that's not actually a lot. Unfortunately, those who have power are often the least qualified for it.

Oh dear. I seem to have drifted from the topic. While I have no doubt that some guy somewhere in Russia's Navy has stated that his Navy can beat up our Navy, I do highly doubt the likelihood of his claim being the whole truth.

I'm sure that if the current naval forces got into a brawl with each other, the NATO fleet would be gone within 20 minutes. However, that's due to the fact that there probably wouldn't be a single war ship left in the Black Sea after 20 minutes.

You see, NATO and Russia both have extremely advanced radar. If EITHER side fired a missile salvo at the other, the retaliation would be immediate, overwhelming, and unstoppable. Plus there's those pesky nukes that both both sides have stated are acceptable as a first-use weapon...

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Originally posted by airteck

Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

NO, THEY CANT

he might be right, i watched a movie called sinking a destroyter and they used the same gun in the picture they dont do anything and when they finally do it takes some rounds. it might not take 20 minutes per ship but it takes some time. i dont know what stuff the russian fleet has or the usa for that matter but alot of that stuff they showed on the sinking a destroyer program was lame. they never used the submarine.

The first thing the Russians missiles will have to deal with is heavy electronic counter measures. (jamming plus fake targets.)
Next they will deal with the RIM-156 SM-2 Block IVA Navy Area Defense (NAD) missiles and the RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3)
Plus from British ships the sea dart missile and sea wolf missile.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.strategypage.com...
www.royal-navy.mod.uk...

Then they have the inter defence of Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS)
and the en.wikipedia.org...

Remember that this Russian admiral is attacking a NATO fleet.

Plus at the time that we are using our short range systems we are also firing flares and foil.

PLUS at this time the Russians are bending over and kissing they ass good by because we have fired everything but the kitchen sink back at them.
they may destroy the NATO fleet but 5 mins after they are sinking to.

Then our attack sub start hunting with torpedo's and sub launched anti ship missiles for any Russian ships any where world wide.

ex US navy sailor,



[edit on 30-8-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by ANNED]

reply to post by ANNED


plus that the ageis cruiser which is a ticonderoga class(CG), carries 122 tomahawks, is usually the flagship of the nato convoy.
when we attacked Iraq,the missles were fired from the other side of saudi arabia. they went over saudi,across the gulf,and half way across Iraq,down somebody's chimney.
there are several CG class cruisers,not to mention DDG's(destroyers) that could rein a little death themselves.
my daughter was on the USS MONTEREY,CG61,A YEAR AGO AND THEY WERE THE FLAGSHIP FOR THE CONVOY.
they were war ready. don't let them fool you.

There is one thing that the Russians have that the Americans don't. Russians are crazy. If you know your WWII history you'll see that the Russians will do ANYTHING to defend their homeland. And in this modern era we live in their nuclear arsenal is far more superior in my OPINION than the rest of the world. What do you think would have happened to Germany if the Russians had nuclear weapons back in WWII?? Yes, Germany would be a pile of glass today. I personally think their quota hasn't changed. Don't anger crazy people you'll regret it, leave them be

Originally posted by mattifikation
I'm sure that if the current naval forces got into a brawl with each other, the NATO fleet would be gone within 20 minutes. However, that's due to the fact that there probably wouldn't be a single war ship left in the Black Sea after 20 minutes.

I think this is a pretty accurate assessment - modern missile systems are very effective and deadly.

They are also very hard to shoot down.

Modern naval warfare tends to be rapid and final.

If anything, the Russian vessels might survive a few minutes longer, because Harpoons are a bit slower than their supersonic AShM's.

But some of them will get there, and just one will ruin your whole day:



That's not to mention the extremely deadly subsurface vessels both sides certainly have in the area. A hit from just one modern heavyweight torpedo will break the hull of a Moskva or Burke sized vessel in half instantly.

reply to post by lagnar


The Gulf of Tonkin ring any bells? Don't assume the US won't try to repeat that incident, either.

Having actually been in the Navy and had the pleasure to see the CIWS system in action, unless a stealth missile is developed regardless of the trajectory and or speed of the incoming object, this system is specifically designed to counter it and has been tested against the best missiles any military as to offer.

Just to demonstrate how effective and how small a target it can engage, here is a video of it destroying an incoming artillery round.... which is much much smaller that any shipborne missile.

and do'nt forget ISS is depending on russia aswel..:-) in fact russia ownes ISS

reply to post by DisabledVet


The artillery shell was heading towards it on a ballistic trajectory (ie directly at it) with a nice, clean radar background, as opposed to being 1m above sea-level, with increased angular velocity, in the clutter of the waves. At least try to compare apples with apples

And no, the Phalanx hasn't been tested with the "best missiles", as the US doesn't have access to the best missiles, as foreign governments don't particularly like preparing possible future enemies for their own destruction. I would have thought that would be obvious to a sailor. Apparently not.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by DisabledVet

 

The artillery shell was heading towards it on a ballistic trajectory (ie directly at it) with a nice, clean radar background, as opposed to being 1m above sea-level, with increased angular velocity, in the clutter of the waves. At least try to compare apples with apples

And no, the Phalanx hasn't been tested with the "best missiles", as the US doesn't have access to the best missiles, as foreign governments don't particularly like preparing possible future enemies for their own destruction. I would have thought that would be obvious to a sailor. Apparently not.

Spoken like a true civilian.

Phalanx has been developed through a number of different configurations. The basic style is the Block 0. The Block 1 (1988) offers various improvements in radar, ammunition, rate of fire, increasing engagement elevation to +70 degrees, and computing. These improvements were intended to increase the system's capability against emerging Soviet supersonic anti-ship missiles. Block 1A introduced a new computer system to counter more maneuverable targets. The Block 1B PSuM (Phalanx Surface Mode, 1999) adds a forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor to allow the weapon to be used against surface targets. This addition was developed to provide ship defense against small vessel threats and other "floaters" in littoral waters and to improve the weapon's performance against slower low-flying aircraft. The FLIR's capability is also of use against low-observability missiles and can be linked with the Rolling Airframe Missile system to increase RAM engagement range and accuracy. The Block 1B also allows for an operator to identify and target threats.

reply to post by DisabledVet


Phalanx would be extremely effective against a single subsonic target like an incoming attack aircraft with dumb bombs or even an Exoocet or two (as long as it's turned on ).

It's effectiveness against a dozen or so incoming supersonic cruise missiles with terminal maneuvering is limited. That's why the Navy is moving to SeaRAM and ESSM in lieu of Phalanx, because the only way to deal with these weapons is to try and hit them at longer ranges.

The window of opportunity for engaging a missile coming in at Mach 3, maneuvering at 20g, 3m off the waves is very, very short. Too short for Phalanx to take out multiple threats.

reply to post by DisabledVet


Spoken like a true serviceman. I can read Wikipedia, too, I just happen to know what it's talking about. Clearly you don't if you think taking out an artillery shell is anything to be excited about.

As I said, the Phalanx is not as good as you seem to think it is against very fast missiles flying at the target 1m above the sea. Nothing in that paragraph says any different. A surface target or "floater" is not the same as a supersonic missile 1m off the sea, and a supersonic missile is not the same as a supersonic missile 1m off the sea. Especially if it has the ability for an indirect flight path, in which case the Phalanx is screwed (and yes, I did read 'more maneuverable targets' - hopelessly vague).

And unless each ship has more Phalanxes than missiles being fired at it, its performance doesn't matter. The ship will go boom, and the fish will have a new house to play in.