Tupolev Tu-160 pair make first transatlantic flight

reply to post by Darkpr0


I'd like to know the answers as well but I don't think the Navy put the Big A out in the middle of the Atlantic, conducted the tests in secret and scuttled the ship in under 16,000 Ft of water to publish such results. From the public record we can only assume she was subjected to a variety of conventional and unconventional above/below water line explosive tests.

As for the Russian flying torpedo, interesting concept, but that does not really make sense from the perspective of sinking a carrier. Torpedos are the most effective way of sinking any ship, carrier included. One well placed hit from a modern torpedo could accomplish more than a salvo of missiles. Multiple torpedo hits, well, I hope that never happens...

Originally posted by FredT

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]

Better luck next time Freddy
A. Mach 2.5
B. 500 Kt nuclear
C. Range 550.00km
1. www.missilethreat.com...
A. SS-N-26
1. CruisIing Speed Mach 2.0 at low altitude
2. Range 300 km
3. www.missilethreat.com...
They are both NOT like the SSN-22 Bye Bye CGB

And yes you should check Janes, because I did and Russia has
1. 16 Destroyers
2. 40 Frigets
3. 5 Cruzers
4. 50 Corvets
the U.S. doesn't have that much I looked, the only advantage the U.S. has is in SSN's and CVN's.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by wantawanta]

I have had access, in my past, to classified technical data relative to these (old) systems. The data posted above is exaggerated and incorrect.

And I trust the information provided by professional intelligence agencies with a staff of experts and billion dollar budgets over that of www.somebullcrapwebsite.org any day of the week.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by Darkpr0

 

I'd like to know the answers as well but I don't think the Navy put the Big A out in the middle of the Atlantic, conducted the tests in secret and scuttled the ship in under 16,000 Ft of water to publish such results. From the public record we can only assume she was subjected to a variety of conventional and unconventional above/below water line explosive tests.

As for the Russian flying torpedo, interesting concept, but that does not really make sense from the perspective of sinking a carrier. Torpedos are the most effective way of sinking any ship, carrier included. One well placed hit from a modern torpedo could accomplish more than a salvo of missiles. Multiple torpedo hits, well, I hope that never happens...

Yes the shkval will do the trick:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Pyros
I have had access, in my past, to classified technical data relative to these (old) systems. The data posted above is exaggerated and incorrect.

And I trust the information provided by professional intelligence agencies with a staff of experts and billion dollar budgets over that of www.somebullcrapwebsite.org any day of the week.

Yeah Yeah when ever these sites show the U.S is more powerful/advanced, there's nothing wrong with these sites but when it Show Russian weapons are more powerful/advamced the same ol' argument is post. "The data posted above is exaggerated and incorrect"

[edit on 23-9-2008 by wantawanta]

Originally posted by wantawanta
And yes you should check Janes, because I did and Russia has
1. 16 Destroyers
2. 40 Frigets
3. 5 Cruzers
4. 50 Corvets
the U.S. doesn't have that much I looked, the only advantage the U.S. has is in SSN's and CVN's.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by wantawanta]

Where'd you look? Debka?

USN Surface fleet:

Carriers
Nimitz Class CVN (10):
USS Nimitz
USS Dwight Eisenhower
USS Carl Vinson
USS Abraham Lincoln
USS Theodore Roosevelt
USS John Stennis
USS George Washington
USS Harry Truman
USS Ronald Regan
USS George H.W. Bush (under construction)

John F. Kennedy(training carrier) class(1)
USS John F. Kennedy

Enterprise class(1):
USS Enterprise

Kitty Hawk class(1):
USS Kitty Hawk

Cruisers (27)
Ticonderoga class (VLS group) (22)
Ticonderoga class (Non-VLS group) (5)

Destroyers (72)
Arleigh Burke Flight IIA (As of 2006 34 built/ordered with additional 11 planned)
Arleigh Burke Flight I/II (28)
Spruance ASW/Strike (10)


Frigates (32)
Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG (Long Hull Group) (30)
Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG (Short Hull Group) (2)

Just going with cruisers, destroyers, and frigates, the USN has a total of 131 surface combatants. That doesn't count any support ships, any submarines, or any other ships in the USN. Counting in the CV fleet, that adds an additional 14 hulls. So it comes out to 145 hulls.

My source is Janes warship guide you can get at the book store.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by wantawanta]

Never thought I'd say this, but either you read it wrong, or Janes is wrong. Because I trust my source, and I'll even give ship names, dates commissioned, and homeports, but that count is accurate.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Never thought I'd say this, but either you read it wrong, or Janes is wrong. Because I trust my source, and I'll even give ship names, dates commissioned, and homeports, but that count is accurate.

Well it must be wrong, because it was Janes guide to world warships, you can get it at most bookstores, anyways I just looked up on other sites looks like your right, the USN's surface fleet is the biggest.

It clearly was an older edition, fleet sizes have fluctuated since the 90's.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It clearly was an older edition, fleet sizes have fluctuated since the 90's.

Yeam Im guessing thats the case becasue a) most book stores do not carry the most current edition (they will have older versions at a huge discount)

A 2008-2009 Jane's Fighting Ships will run you 1000.00 on Amazon.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It clearly was an older edition, fleet sizes have fluctuated since the 90's.

Yeam Im guessing thats the case becasue a) most book stores do not carry the most current edition (they will have older versions at a huge discount)

A 2008-2009 Jane's Fighting Ships will run you 1000.00 on Amazon.

do you mean $100 or $1000??

No, he meant $1000. Janes is the most expensive book you will ever see anywhere.

Originally posted by wantawanta
Well it must be wrong, because it was Janes guide to world warships, you can get it at most bookstores, anyways I just looked up on other sites looks like your right, the USN's surface fleet is the biggest.

Yes, The USN has always had a larger surface fleet given it's aim of controlling the Oceans of the world while the USSR focused on creating sufficient forces to interdict Atlantic traffic long enough to finish off NATO forces in Europe. I for one believe they easily had this capability by the 70's ( a opinion i merely have because some US admirals believed it) and continued to build on that dominance into the 80's.

As for their current capabilities Russia could probably still close the Atlantic for the same reasons that the British had so much trouble keeping it open in 1940. It would probably involve nuclear warheads from the start but then the Russians were never really planning to fight world war three any other way.

The primary reason why i believe the Russians still retain this capability lies in their Oscar class cruise missile submarines; the rest of the surface navy will serve as useful and potent distraction but probably doesn't have the means to approach US carrier battle groups without suffering too much attrition. Either way they have five of those with a additional five that are in various states of repair which they will probably be able to return to battle given a sufficiently extended period of tension or protracted war.

Either way the five they have will probably be enough to put half a dozen carrier battle groups out of service for long or forever.

Interestingly the USN plans to fight world war three without many/any tactical nuclear weapons. Good luck with that and i hope we never find out if that was a smart course to take.

online.wsj.com...

Stellar

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, he meant $1000. Janes is the most expensive book you will ever see anywhere.

WOW, how do they expect to make $ does a LOT of people actually buy those Janes Defence books?:

There are certain groups that buy a lot of them. They are one of the best out there when it comes to the information that is in them. My father, when he was a civilian contractor for the USAF had copies that were a year or so old floating around his office all the time. The military buys them, as do a lot of other industry related companies.

Originally posted by wantawanta
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]

No, its more amazing that act like you know anything. Su-33, flying 10 ft above the water at Mach 2????? Ask your mum to help you with these postings.

Do you really think the USN is going to put their ships right in range of the best enemy weapons like some of those anti ship missiles? I think their planners are probably a bit more knowledgable of weapon systems, but then you know about the ultra fast sea skimming mach 2 Su-33...

reply to post by firepilot

There's nothing stopping a mach 2.17 from flying at 10ft above the Atlantic/Pacific 60-100 miles from a U.S. C.B.G. and launching SS-N-26's at them.

Here's some ifo to think about: The Russians Mug the Kitty Hawk, the Saratoga, the Constellation, the Carl Vinson, and others.

"The examples above from unscripted naval exercise evolutions provide ample evidence of the vulnerability of US Navy carrier battle groups to attacks from diesel submarines, but of course there are other ways to sink a carrier, as the Russian Air Force knows well. In October 2000, the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was mugged by Russian SU-24 and Su-27 aircraft, which were not detected until they were virtually on top of the carrier. The Russian aircraft buzzed the carrier's flight deck and caught the ship completely unprepared. To add insult to injury, the Russians took very detailed photos of the Kitty Hawk's flight deck, and very courteously, provided the pictures to the American skipper via e-mail. In a story in the December 7, 2000 edition of WorldNetDaily, one US sailor exclaimed, “The entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt of intercepting them. Russia's air force is now only a faint shadow of what it once was, but even now, they can demonstrate that they can, if necessary, do significant damage to the US Navy. It's little wonder then that a Russian newspaper gloated that If these had been planes on a war mission, the aircraft carrier would definitely have been sunk."
Link: www.transasianaxis.com...


Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Jbird]

Except for the fact that no plane in the world, can fly at Mach 2, at 10 feet. So physics and aerodynamics can defintely stop your little pet theory.

Originally posted by firepilot
Except for the fact that no plane in the world, can fly at Mach 2, at 10 feet. So physics and aerodynamics can defintely stop your little pet theory.

Some ASM's (Soviet) can and do achieve Mach 2 on the deck. They have the aerodynamics and propulsion to do so.

The US looked at a nuclear powered cruise missile in the 50's and 60's. It could have achieve Mach 3 on the deck. SO the speed is possible, but only a few right now can do it.