Tupolev Tu-160 pair make first transatlantic flight

So according to you, any civilian airliner flying over a CBG at ANY altitude would be shot down, or the CBG wouldn't know they were there. Airspace over a CBG is NOT restricted unless it's wartime. And if they didn't knwo the Russian bombers were there, why do they have F-18 Hornets flying next to them when they cross the carrier group?

As for antiship missiles improving in the last 20 years, the detection technology has increased in leaps and bounds. And you're trying to say that an OHP that wasn't designed to fight off antiship missiles like an Aegis was top of the line at the time, when it wasn't.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Zaphod58]

Mumbo jumbo? I am sorry that reality is mumbo jumbo for you but if it is, maybe you should learn more about military capabilities. And also this was not exactly broadcast out there for all to know about either, since you were not exactly aware of this incident either it seems.

And no, Russia did not have the same capabilities as the western Navies, nor do they still do this day. Did they have some great capabilities? Yes they did. But not the same or as great.


Thats not what the experts said: The Late Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, US Navy (Retired), himself a former aircraft carrier skipper, was also an outspoken critic of the Navy and its infatuation with big aircraft carriers and its collective fear of change. He once said that if the United States continues on its path to build ever larger and ever more expensive aircraft carriers, it will eventually degenerate into a “bankrupt nation.” The most damning comment ever made by a senior officer was that of the Late CNO, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, US Navy, who in 1971 confessed that with the advent of long-range Soviet anti-ship missiles, if there had been a US-Soviet conventional naval war, the US Navy “would lose.”

If Zumwalt was correct, the only way the US Navy could handle the Soviet Navy was through the use of nuclear weapons, which in turn would provoke a Soviet response, and then, in all likelihood, both sides would be destroyed. Apparently, Admiral Thomas Moorer, US Navy, was worried also. When Soviet and US ships confronted one another in the Mediterranean during the October War of 1973, Goldstein and Zhukov observed: “Soviet battle groups were using the actual U.S. aircraft carriers in the area as virtual targets, an act comparable to holding a cocked pistol to an adversary's temple. Adhering to a kamikaze-like, "battle of the first salvo" doctrine, the Soviet force of 96 ships was poised to launch approximately 13 surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs) at each task group in the U.S. 6th Fleet deployed in the Mediterranean. U.S. Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then chief of naval operations, recalled a Washington Special Action Group meeting at the peak of the crisis, during which Adm. Thomas Moorer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated: "[W]e would lose our [expletive] in the Eastern Med [if war breaks out]."

1. www.g2mil.com...

2. www.transasianaxis.com...

[edit on 22-9-2008 by wantawanta]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So according to you, any civilian airliner flying over a CBG at ANY altitude would be shot down, or the CBG wouldn't know they were there. Airspace over a CBG is NOT restricted unless it's wartime. And if they didn't knwo the Russian bombers were there, why do they have F-18 Hornets flying next to them when they cross the carrier group?

No the CBG would know it was thier and alow it to fly 35k ft over it, some times they mess up like in 89 with the Iranian planes shot down, but when you said Russian bombers I did know you were talking about the Tu-22/160's that the Russians announced they would be flying, and ALOWD them\selves to be tracked in order to understand U.S. tracking cababilites better, I thought you were talking about the numerous times in the early 2000's when Su-27/24's were flying over U.S. Navy ships not being detected until it was conciderd "to-late" by battle standards, sorry I mistook what you were saying.

As for antiship missiles improving in the last 20 years, the detection technology has increased in leaps and bounds. And you're trying to say that an OHP that wasn't designed to fight off antiship missiles like an Aegis was top of the line at the time, when it wasn't.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Zaphod58]

No what I'm saying specificaly is Iranians with SS-22/26's are gonna SINK U.S. C.B.G.'s

[edit on 22-9-2008 by wantawanta]

Every Soviet/Russian overflight of a US CBG has been tracked. Shooting down any plane overflying a group that was shot down is an act of war.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Every Soviet/Russian overflight of a US CBG has been tracked. Shooting down any plane overflying a group that was shot down is an act of war.

Thats pure B.S. and YA KNOW IT BUDDY!!, trying to use the ol "cold war era "face saving" frase "we've always tracked them" doesn't work any more with the advent of the internet and research.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by wantawanta]

Oh really? Then why has almost every overflight had an F/A-18 or F-14 flying next to it when it crossed over the carrier? The only ones that haven't recently were SU-24s that overflew the Kitty Hawk while she was undergoing UNREP and couldn't launch. However, they were tracked coming down along Japan before getting to the ship. You can't prove any overflights have occured that weren't tracked, because it hasn't happened. Aegis is capable of tracking targets at sea level, from the horizon out with datalinks to the E-2s or other ships.

But of course you'll say that they have because you know that American equipment sucks and it's all overblown.

As for using the face saving, I'm using sources that aren't anywhere near the internet, and that most people don't have access to for some of this information. Sources that wouldn't lie to me.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by wantawanta


You're new here - Don't come here to pick fights with respected members, or else you come across as a bumbling fool. Did it even occur to you that some members of this board are, in some way or another, defense professionals?

No what I'm saying specificaly is Iranians with SS-22/26's are gonna SINK U.S. C.B.G.'s

Baloney.

They won't put the C.B.G's in a position to be destroyed, while they destroy the launchers with other, air, assets. This is real life, not a strategy game.

[edit on 22/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by wantawanta
No what I'm saying specificaly is Iranians with SS-22/26's are gonna SINK U.S. C.B.G.'s

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that a salvo of such missiles all hit a super carrier, it will most likely remain floating. Mission kill yes, but it wont sink if the engineers and crew have done their job properly.

In any case, without getting into the details of such a scenario, throwing general unsupported statements like that round is pretty lame. Not one modern Russian anti-ship missile has ever been fired in anger, or against a target representative of an AEGIS CBG. The USN is the only navy in the world with that kind of total capability, so what are the Russians basing their selling points on? Unpublished test results and hype to keep 3rd world dictators feeling safe with a sense of false security?

Originally posted by wantawanta
lol:

No what I'm saying specificaly is Iranians with SS-22/26's are gonna SINK U.S. C.B.G.'s

You seem to be new here to ATS so welcome. As such let me give you fair warning that in the aviation forums the usual internet style of bombastic chest beating is simply not done here. Ignorant trolling is just that.

Back to the topic at hand:

Assumming that the Sunburn gets past the BARCAP F/A-18E's with the AMRAAM C-7 variant, Then the AEGIS sytem comes into play. Assuming that a few missiles get through the SM-2's, then the Rolling airframe missile comes into play. It was designed with high speed targets like the Sunburn in mind as the CIWS tended to explode the missile resulting in the ship getting fragged. At last we come to the CIWS.

Of cource in that scenario you are assuming the the CBG have been caught in the straights of Hormuz or close in. If they are positioned around Qatar, you have a bit more distance as well as the possiblity that PAC-3 can engage. there are rumors that THAAD can be modifed for seas kimming cruise missiles but that at best is a rumor.

If the CBG's are in the Arabian Sea or the Med (assuming they get overflight rights) then the are out of reach even for a sucide pilot launching from a Su-27.

The 250 km range which is subject to debate is no doubt for the air launched variant in a HI-lo flight pattern. if the ground launch uses a LO-LO approach it will be alot less.

It continues to amaze me about the mythological capabilites Soviet systems seem to attain in these discussions. No doubt they play big with tin plated dictators in the 3rd world.

On a side note you even notice the more rinky dink and brutal a dictator or country is the more medals the generals and leaders sport? I mean look at those pictures of the old Soviet leadership. Enough bling for a rap concert.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not one modern Russian anti-ship missile has ever been fired in anger, or against a target representative of an AEGIS CBG.

On the one hand, I have to ask: How many times has the US tested modern anti-ship missiles/torpedoes against their CBGs?

On the other hand, I cannot believe the words are coming out of me mouth, I agree with Westy. There's no way to back up the claim that the Russian missiles would sink a supercarrier, but based on an inference I'd say it would take more than a few hits. Maybe a penetrator bomb could damage the reactor, but that's a million to one shot with a munition you don't take on an anti-Navy sortie. And that's with the huge assumption that you can get close enough to do anything. A carrier battle group is not something you nose up to a few klicks of the enemy force. With the kind of combat radius of the air power, you'd be foolish to get into ranges where you risk getting hit.

That being said, I'd like to deal with the simple issue of detecting the flyovers which seems to be a bit of a hellraiser in this thread. Whether or not every single flyover has been detected, let me remind you of one thing.

These are Tu-160 Blackjacks.

These are Tu-160 Blackjacks.

These are Tu-160 Blackjacks.

Repeats for emphasis. Do you have any idea how massive these things are? They can carry more ordinance than a B-52 Stratofortress IIRC. That is a big deal, no pun intended. They are not built for hiding. The B-2 Spirit was made to be undetectable. The Tu-160 is made to dash into enemy airspace and bomb the living crap out of the facilities so that the response is significantly weakened. So you have a huge, heavy airframe leaving a massive jet plume and probably a huge radar return. Does this sound like a jet that you wouldn't notice were you a CBG with sophisticated anti-air capabilities and sensing?

By the way: The Tu-160s were escorted over the Atlantic by NATO fighters, so the point is moot. The CBG and all of Europe knew what the score was.

And now, for something completely different.

On a side note you even notice the more rinky dink and brutal a dictator or country is the more medals the generals and leaders sport? I mean look at those pictures of the old Soviet leadership. Enough bling for a rap concert.

*Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev is in surgery.* / "Heart again?" / "No, chest expansion surgery: to fit one more Gold Star medal."

From an old Russian comic that has been wordified, if memory serves .

How many times has the US tested modern anti-ship missiles/torpedoes against their CBGs?

See USS America

Originally posted by firepilot
See USS America

Hmm, I obviously fail at being specific. While the USS America is a neat example, I have to ask: Were they using modern Russian arms to do so? The answer, I suspect, is no. So, well done finding an example and a loophole in my post . Unfortunately I don't don't think it helps us figure out exactly what a Russian weapon could do to an aircraft carrier, so I suspect that we'll have to keep looking for an answer to that particular question.

reply to post by Darkpr0


Ballistics are the same, regardless. The U.S.S. America was subjected to a variety of battle damage. From weapon systems that target both above and below the water line, both conventional and not. Even without a crew on board the Big A still had to be scuttled after the tests.

Even the U.S.S.Oriskany had to be purposely weakened and cut up in certain places in order for the demolition charges to sink her.

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by wantawanta

 

You're new here - Don't come here to pick fights with respected members, or else you come across as a bumbling fool. Did it even occur to you that some members of this board are, in some way or another, defense professionals?

No what I'm saying specificaly is Iranians with SS-22/26's are gonna SINK U.S. C.B.G.'s

Baloney.

They won't put the C.B.G's in a position to be destroyed, while they destroy the launchers with other, air, assets. This is real life, not a strategy game.

[edit on 22/9/2008 by C0bzz]

I'm not new here I've been here longer than YOU, those CBG'S WILL BE DESTROYED IF THEY HAVE SS-22'S/26's IN SUFFICENT NUMBERS, WHEATHER YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by wantawanta
No what I'm saying specificaly is Iranians with SS-22/26's are gonna SINK U.S. C.B.G.'s

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that a salvo of such missiles all hit a super carrier, it will most likely remain floating. Mission kill yes, but it wont sink if the engineers and crew have done their job properly.

In any case, without getting into the details of such a scenario, throwing general unsupported statements like that round is pretty lame. Not one modern Russian anti-ship missile has ever been fired in anger, or against a target representative of an AEGIS CBG. The USN is the only navy in the world with that kind of total capability, so what are the Russians basing their selling points on? Unpublished test results and hype to keep 3rd world dictators feeling safe with a sense of false security?

1. The SS-19/22/26 in the Russky arsenal have have 100/200kt nuke warheads, they WILL sink CBG's.
2. What in the world are you meaning in your 2 paragraph, that only the U.S. has the capabilites to shoot anti-ship missiles? btw you do know that Russia has more frigets, cruisers "OPERATIONAL" now (2008) that the U.S. right?

What makes them out of range a Su-33 can fly at mack 2 at about 10 ft. from the suface of the water and launch POP goes the weasle, as far as the CGB is concerned.

The 250 km range which is subject to debate is no doubt for the air launched variant in a HI-lo flight pattern. if the ground launch uses a LO-LO approach it will be alot less.

Lets say the 250 km is questionable on the SS-N-22(which I don't doubt can go 250km) theres the SS-N-19 which has 550-625 km range and a 500 kt nuke warhead, mach 2.5, I can assure you the CGB is completely destroyed AND sunk after than, the SS-N-26 120-300 km Mach 2.5 man your CGB's history, there's no defense in the U.S. Navy against those that I've read about.

It continues to amaze me about the mythological capabilites U.S. systems seem to attain in these discussions. No doubt they play a big installing dictators in the 3rd world in the last 50+ years.




[edit on 23-9-2008 by wantawanta]

reply to post by wantawanta




No, you have not. Remember what I said about blumbling fools? Now go to your room, young man, and don't come back out until you've improved your attitude.

[edit on 23/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by wantawanta
theres the SS-N-19 which has 550-625 km range and a 500 kt nuke warhead, mach 2.5, I can assure you the CGB is completely destroyed AND sunk after than, the SS-N-26 120-300 km Mach 2.5 man your CGB's history, there's no defense in the U.S. Navy against those that I've read about.

Have the Soviets exported the SS-N-19 to the Iranians? With the aforementioned nuclear warhead? Doubtfull and the Mach 2.5 speed has never been confirmed (1.6M is most often mentioned) even so its the same intercept issues as the vaunted Sunburn.

When did we get nuclear? The Shipwreck can carry a 750 kg conventional warhead.

The vaunted SS-N-26 which is basically a SS-N-7 with a ramjet which again has the same intecept issues I outlined before. Remeber also the top speed quoted by whatever reference you are using is for high altitude flight. they are abit slower down on the deck.

It continues to amaze me about the mythological capabilites U.S. systems seem to attain in these discussions. No doubt they play a big installing dictators in the 3rd world in the last 50+ years.

Its not mythological if true eh? Also we prefer the term 'Strongman" to dictator if they are in our favor.



[edit on 9/23/08 by FredT]

Originally posted by wantawanta
1. The SS-19/22/26 in the Russky arsenal have have 100/200kt nuke warheads, they WILL sink CBG's.
2. What in the world are you meaning in your 2 paragraph, that only the U.S. has the capabilites to shoot anti-ship missiles?

btw you do know that Russia has more frigets, cruisers "OPERATIONAL" now (2008) that the U.S. right?

I will check my "Janes all the worlds ships" when I get home but
Frigates? They seem to have 8
Destroyers? They seem to have 17
Cruisers? They have 4
and one Carrier.
www.globalsecurity.org...

By operational do me mean tied to the pier and rusting? If so then i agree

The USN has 30+ FFG-7 OLIVER HAZARD PERRY-class and 60+ Arleigh Burke (with more in rpoduction) www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ballistics are the same, regardless. The U.S.S. America was subjected to a variety of battle damage. From weapon systems that target both above and below the water line, both conventional and not. Even without a crew on board the Big A still had to be scuttled after the tests.

I won't debate the fact that carriers can take a beatin' as it is, in fact, a fact. While I've no doubt conventional munitions are pretty similar (Dumb bombs, guided bombs, AGMs, whatnot), there are a couple more exotic pieces I'm wondering about. I'm not up on the specifics of the USS America program, nor am I very familiar with A2G or Naval weapons, so you'd probably know better than I the answers to these questions:

-Do you know if penetrator bombs were more effective than GP's?
-Were they able to test the effects equivalent to something like a KAB-1500 (1500 kg TV-guided air-launched AGM, I don't know of anything in the US arsenal this heavy that can be deployed on fighters)?
-Russians now have that interesting torpedo that rises out of the water, flies to target at high velocity, and collides with massive kinetic energy, but I've no good information on the project. Might have been Shkval 2? Anyway, was there any testing with something like this on USS A?

Hopefully you know more than I do.

Note: This is less a debate over who could blow up what so much as an attempt to give everyone an idea of exactly what it takes to sink a Carrier. I really don't know the effects of the above weapons on something as big as a carrier.

Pr0