Super Missile Cruiser "Moskva" with Destroyers And Frigates heads for Syria

reply to post by Zaphod58


It only takes one time to end it all and that "it aint going to happen" attitude could eventually catch you with your pants down! I would hate to see this thing escalate into nuclear territory but I don't imagine it will take much with the amount of volatility in that area and the amount of nations! How many strikes will Israel tolerate before they decide to respond with the nuclear capabilities we all know they have! This is a very dangerous game Obama is playing! IMO only a fool would risk policing a country that could escalate out of control!
Lets hope he decides to play chicken with his own life and not the rest of the worlds!

Zaphod58
Better? I'm done with this. You guys just want to be able to scream about how we're all screwed, and it's the end of the world. Have fun with that.

Some people just love posting doom porn!

reply to post by hellobruce


While others prefer posting in favour of deceit and warmongering.

I see a lot of brow beating towards the US. A lot of people don't want to see the US attack Syria (me included) and seem to be pumping up the Russian Navy.

A few things to take into consideration when comparing the two navies though:

First off, the "Moskva" is a really old cruiser. There's nothing new about it; seeing as how it was commissioned in 1983. It literally is the only cruiser that the Russian navy has in operation. Don't get me wrong, its a lethal ship even still as I'm sure it has seen its fair share of upgrades...but that thing has been in the dry docks for some time until very recently.

America has 12 Aircraft supercarriers; the largest ships of their kind.

Russia has one aircraft carrier, and it isn't in the same class as a supercarrier.

Russia has 27 Destroyers compared to Americas 62 Destroyers (including the impressive state of the art Aegis for the Americans).

Russia has 5 frigates (all in relatively bad shape) compared to Americas 24.

Russia simply can not compete with the US in this instance. One Russian cruiser cannot compete against 6 Aegis class destroyers, an entire Nimitz class air craft carrier division, and state of the art virginia class attack subs...Russia would end up getting its ass kicked in this instance.

Now, I personally would like to see cooler heads prevail. Personally, Syria doesn't matter to me. The American people have more to lose than gain by interfering in a civil war in a country located on the other side of the planet. It isn't a threat to the US, we should steer clear of trouble. Unfortunately, it looks like we're dead set on finding it.

reply to post by rock427


FFS the big floaty things are just lumps of scrap that the military keep around to convince the taxpayer they are getting value for money.....In a modern war against a modern opponent (as opposed to people who live in caves) they are about as relevant as a sword & shield.

rock427
I see a lot of brow beating towards the US. A lot of people don't want to see the US attack Syria (me included) and seem to be pumping up the Russian Navy.

A few things to take into consideration when comparing the two navies though:

First off, the "Moskva" is a really old cruiser. There's nothing new about it; seeing as how it was commissioned in 1983. It literally is the only cruiser that the Russian navy has in operation. Don't get me wrong, its a lethal ship even still as I'm sure it has seen its fair share of upgrades...but that thing has been in the dry docks for some time until very recently.

America has 12 Aircraft supercarriers; the largest ships of their kind.

Russia has one aircraft carrier, and it isn't in the same class as a supercarrier.

Russia has 27 Destroyers compared to Americas 62 Destroyers (including the impressive state of the art Aegis for the Americans).

Russia has 5 frigates (all in relatively bad shape) compared to Americas 24.

Russia simply can not compete with the US in this instance. One Russian cruiser cannot compete against 6 Aegis class destroyers, an entire Nimitz class air craft carrier division, and state of the art virginia class attack subs...Russia would end up getting its ass kicked in this instance.

Now, I personally would like to see cooler heads prevail. Personally, Syria doesn't matter to me. The American people have more to lose than gain by interfering in a civil war in a country located on the other side of the planet. It isn't a threat to the US, we should steer clear of trouble. Unfortunately, it looks like we're dead set on finding it.

edit on 5-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

I'm totally against any attack on Syria. It doesn't affect us directly. We have enough of our own problems at home. Let the other Arab nations deal with their neighbor.

Now.. I had posted earlier stating that I think the Russian's would be able to do a lot of damage to us, if it comes down to it, and I stand by that. And I say that because, this younger generation has only seen the Iraq war in the 90s, where we destroyed Iraq.. and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In terms of conventional warfare, yes we can pretty much kick the life out of anyone, Russia included. But they are certainly a much more formidable opponent than Iraq or the Taliban have been. There will be a lot more deaths.

In this situation.. is any of this warranted? Do we really need to get to this point? Over Syria??! This whole situation is nothing more than a few guys trying to have a dick measuring contest. And now the word is out and no one wants to look weak and back down.

Obama should listen to Congress. The Congress should listen to the people. I think what.. only 9% of the US support a strike on Syria? Obviously the populace do not want another damn war. Congress should take THIS into account, rather than their own personal feelings, and vote based on that. And if they vote NO.. Obama should accept it, give up his little attack plans and MOVE ON. Frankenstein Kerry should go back to doing whatever the hell it is he does, and McCain should go play Call of Duty or something if he's so gung-ho to fight a war.. jeez..

squarehead666
reply to post by rock427

 

FFS the big floaty things are just lumps of scrap that the military keep around to convince the taxpayer they are getting value for money.....In a modern war against a modern opponent (as opposed to people who live in caves) they are about as relevant as a sword & shield.

Navies aren't obsolete, especially in the modern arena against modern foes. They are actually incredibly important for logistical purposes. You have to be able to move your military force around, without a navy, that is quite a difficult task. The problem with building a modern navy is that they're just incredibly expensive to build and maintain.

The Soviets tried to keep up with the americans in this regard, but did not have the funds to have a Navy on par with the american one. We saw this first hand with the Cuban missile crisis. The Russians knew then that they could not take the American navy head on. The best they could hope for is to develop cheap alternative weapons to try and counter the American naval threat to the best of their abilities.

They have some highly touted weapons systems like the Sunburn which have never been adequately tested, let alone tested against a modern foe with state of the art defense mechanisms in place. A carrier for instance is not the sitting duck people like you make it out to be. It is actually protected by several layers of of air defense systems based upon AEGIS, THAAD, etc.

Again, these weapon systems are incredibly important for force projection and logistics. Without them, you cannot project force beyond your own borders. They are well equipped to deal with modern foes and the continually evolving threats that come with them.

A great instance of this is lasers, which will be adorning US naval assets in the near future. I believe the USS Ponce will have laser air and ground defense capabilities by 2014. And according to some reports, naval lasers are already operating in the Persian gulf to deflect drones. It won't be long until carriers and Aegis destroyers have access to these defense capabilities that operate at the speed of light. So if Russia and China are going to "kill" US carriers, they better get on with it now before those weapon systems are made obsolete by the USN.

reply to post by DerekJR321


War is not really beneficial by in large to the general populace. It benefits the military industrial complex and a few key people at the top.

In regards to Russia, they simply suck at force projection. Because of this, I believe that they would in all likelihood get spanked badly by the US. America practically invented logistics! However, if this were in Russia, obviously the outcome would be far different.

I definitely think American kit is superior to Russias. The US R&D budget for just the military itself is $80 billion, which is larger than Russias entire annual military budget of $60 billion. So Russia really doesn't hold a flame to the US in regards to cutting edge military procurement. Obviously that does not mean that they could not inflict significant damage. Clearly they could. But Russia is far less powerful today compared to where they stood against America at the height of the cold war.

If you look at the Russian procurement process, its entirely based upon countering what the americans are putting out there. They're not really trying to be the leader in innovation like the Americans are; But they're simply trying to counter whatever the Americans throw out there. That's the way I personally perceive it. If you look at the Russian procurment process and what they have in the pipeline, this becomes quite evident.

I personally can't blame them. The US is a warring country hellbent on feeding its military industrial complex while Americans go hungry and infrastructure continues to crumble and age. I personally think we spend too much on our military. We should drastically scale back. We could spend half of what we currently do and still be the largest spender by A LOT! But so long as we have warmongers leading our country, this will not change anytime soon.

Originally posted by squarehead666
reply to post by hellobruce

 

While others prefer posting in favour of deceit and warmongering.

Right because if we stay out of it the war is going end and stop spilling over into other countries. Better we not try and conrol events and just let things go and hope for the best. What could possibly go wrong.

How about a little mood music?



"The Dogs Of War"

Dogs of war and men of hate
With no cause, we don't discriminate
Discovery is to be disowned
Our currency is flesh and bone
Hell opened up and put on sale
Gather 'round and haggle
For hard cash, we will lie and deceive
Even our masters don't know the web we weave
One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world ... One world
Invisible transfers, long distance calls,
Hollow laughter in marble halls
Steps have been taken, a silent uproar
Has unleashed the dogs of war
You can't stop what has begun
Signed, sealed, they deliver oblivion
We all have a dark side, to say the least
And dealing in death is the nature of the beast
One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world ... One world
The dogs of war won't negotiate
The dogs of war don't capitulate,
They will take and you will give,
And you must die so that they may live
You can knock at any door,
But wherever you go, you know they've been there before
Well winners can lose and things can get strained
But whatever you change, you know the dogs remain.
One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world ... One world

Moskva has been many times in the region, she is the same ship, never being called "supercruiser". Perhaps today the importance of this ship along with others are reevaluated. US Navy doesn't have equivaent to the Russian clas Slava or the bigger one Kirov.

Moskva en.wikipedia.org... carries besides defensive weaponry such as S-300 and smaller missiles, also 16 tubes originally prepared for P-500 Basalt. en.wikipedia.org... That missile is developed in 1970s and since then there are many newer versions of anti-ship missiles carried by all major Soviet/Russian ships and submarines. One of the latest missiles is known as Yakhont. I doubt Moskva will carry the old missiles, perhaps not even Yakhont. We never know what they will put inside the tubes. Remember the "failed" launch of Bulava produced the Norway spiral in Dec. 2009.

Could a single ship plus a dozen supportive ones start WW3? Perhaps yes if it is just the starting shot. Still, the old fashioned missiles could carry 350 kiloton warhead each that makes 16x or 5 megaton power combined. It is not known what kind of warheads the new missiles (Yakhont, other) could possibly load. Still, WW3 will be total and not regional. Moskva is an important piece of the scenario, not the entire scenario. It is good she is finally noticed in her voyages in the Eastern Mediterranean.

actually the names Missile Cruiser (supercruiser) for Slava class and battle cruiser for the bigger Kirov class are may be well defined, since US has no equivalent ships. The ships and especially their supersonic guided missiles are especially designed to counter strike the US carrier groups, so they are also called carrier-killers. They have never been engaged in a real battle with US carrier group so the result of such a hypothetical battle would be also hypothetical.

Instead of development of missiles like these, China developed ballistic missile with the option to divert in the last stage to find the US carrier. Still, no US carrier has been sunk as a result of decades old attempts of USSR and China to counterweight it with special missiles. The future will tell which weaponry passed the test of the time.

Unfortunately, that future will be the one of a nuclear WW3 where the winner will have minutes to win and ultimately will be almost as desperate as the loser. Did we reach that point of no return on planet Earth? If so, we should think of the millions who still could be saved. If the underground cities on both sides are reality (China, India included), then let give a chance to the populations to survive before the commanders push the buttons of final destruction. The generations later might be more merciful in their judgment if such a chance of survival has been given by those who hold the destructive power. Still there is power above, the power of God and that of His subordinates, call them angels or extraterrestrials. At one moment it is they who permit or deny an event to occur. I want to believe when they permit WW3 to happen (seems very soon), they will also take care of the innocent populations from all sides.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by squarehead666

 

I've gone through a lot worse than this will ever be, and I'm still here kicking, and so are the rest of us. Yes, this may get ugly, and it's serious, but Russia and the US don't want a fight with each other.

We have been unbelievably closer than this to all out nuclear war. In one instance, only the cool head of a Soviet Commander, allowed the situation to sit long enough to simmer and defuse. People went about their daily lives twice, never knowing that they almost died, moments earlier.

What would Russia hit in Bahrain? LOL!!! Real estate offices? Embassies? The Manama shipping complex? Taxi's and Hotels? Some oil offices? There are some old forts ...and camels. Camels are usually good targets, as you don't even have to hit them, they fall over dead from just a flyover.

Collateral Camels... and they do carry their own chemical warfare WMD (weapon of mass disgust) in a way.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by squarehead666

 

And that's why I said, "they are a threat, but not the threat that they once were or will be again." And do you think the US is blind to the tactical realities of those Russian weapons, and have done nothing to counter them? Yes, they're behind on some of them, but others, they have nice counters to. Just as Russia has counters to some US weapons.

How many times did Stellar X put you in check with your CNN believe speewing lies about Rus being weak, your the type that believes stuff like that 06 report (Lie) stating "U.S.A. now has first strike capabilities over Russia and can now destroy Russia, dude you really don't see the end coming for U.S.A. Mil/Gov do ya, just sit back and NOW we'll see who's gonna win.

Originally posted by rock427

squarehead666
reply to post by rock427

 

FFS the big floaty things are just lumps of scrap that the military keep around to convince the taxpayer they are getting value for money.....In a modern war against a modern opponent (as opposed to people who live in caves) they are about as relevant as a sword & shield.

Navies aren't obsolete, especially in the modern arena against modern foes. They are actually incredibly important for logistical purposes. You have to be able to move your military force around, without a navy, that is quite a difficult task. The problem with building a modern navy is that they're just incredibly expensive to build and maintain.

The Soviets tried to keep up with the americans in this regard, but did not have the funds to have a Navy on par with the american one. We saw this first hand with the Cuban missile crisis. The Russians knew then that they could not take the American navy head on. The best they could hope for is to develop cheap alternative weapons to try and counter the American naval threat to the best of their abilities.

They have some highly touted weapons systems like the Sunburn which have never been adequately tested, let alone tested against a modern foe with state of the art defense mechanisms in place. A carrier for instance is not the sitting duck people like you make it out to be. It is actually protected by several layers of of air defense systems based upon AEGIS, THAAD, etc.

That system is only good for tagets moving ina straight line, and not for very fast zigzagging missiles, Ageis will NOT stop old school SS-19/22/27.

Again, these weapon systems are incredibly important for force projection and logistics. Without them, you cannot project force beyond your own borders. They are well equipped to deal with modern foes and the continually evolving threats that come with them.

A great instance of this is lasers, which will be adorning US naval assets in the near future. I believe the USS Ponce will have laser air and ground defense capabilities by 2014. And according to some reports, naval lasers are already operating in the Persian gulf to deflect drones. It won't be long until carriers and Aegis destroyers have access to these defense capabilities that operate at the speed of light. So if Russia and China are going to "kill" US carriers, they better get on with it now before those weapon systems are made obsolete by the USN.

edit on 5-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

You should keep browsing the net, Russia has exotic weapons for it's self, and U.S. Lasers are just like Phalanx, "if they can't detect/track in time, missiles go BBOOOMMMMBBB in a U.S. Carrier Group.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ATSWATCHER


I agree. It is not easy attacking a US ship.

However the risk is that if one ship is attacked successfully, it may defeat a generation of US ships. These are very expensive pieces of equipment.

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by squarehead666

 

And that's why I said, "they are a threat, but not the threat that they once were or will be again." And do you think the US is blind to the tactical realities of those Russian weapons, and have done nothing to counter them? Yes, they're behind on some of them, but others, they have nice counters to. Just as Russia has counters to some US weapons.

How many times did Stellar X put you in check with your CNN believe spewing lies about Rus being weak, your the type that believes stuff like that 06 report (Lie) stating "U.S.A. now has first strike capabilities over Russia and can now destroy Russia, dude you really don't see the end coming for U.S.A. Mil/Gov do ya, just sit back and NOW we'll see who's gonna win.

Well put ATSWATCHER.

This is mildly interesting

Just now on the Al jazeera live update page

Russia is sending its large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov towards the Syrian coast, state news agency Interfax quoted a navy source as saying on Friday.

"The vessel will dock in Novorossiysk where it will take special cargo on board and head to the designated area of military service in the eastern Mediterranean," Interfax quoted the unnamed navy source as saying.

It gave no more details on the cargo.

Russia, a key international ally of Damascus in the Syrian civil war, is rotating its navy vessels in the Mediterranean and says its presence there is a security guarantee.

Might this special cargo be Assad?

No, they are moving things from Russia to Syria. My first thought is missle defence systems?

reply to post by DutchFree


Most probably.


Btw...i have started a new thread (based on the accumulated data in this one) here

named A possible War scenario between US and Russia (China).