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.

 

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

page: 16
46
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I think that Moskva could be there to provide some cover against US Tomahawks fired from ships and subs.

The Moskva has some 64 SA-N-6 that are the naval equivalent to Russian Army´s S-300PMU SAM system and this system has some anti-missile capability.




posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by meaningless333
 

although it could do so, I don't think Moskva or any other Russian ship will engage in direct interception of the American tomahawks.

Rather, it assures strategic presence. According to the scenarios that could range from

1.Mass evacuation of Russian and Russian-related families that number a total of 100,000 persons living in Syria, by ships to Cyprus and then by plane - the plan was discussed already and trained by Russian landing ships

2. Intelligence gathering for the Syrian ground based missiles Yakhont and others, they are all Russian kind of electronics and compatible with onboard radars. In other words, while the US tomahawks fly towards Syria, the Syrian Yakhonts may sink some ships.

3. The doomsday scenario where every missile and torpedo are considered nuclear armed. Remember the Cuban crisis and the nuclear armed subs at that time. They were outdated in today's standards yet they had 1 nuclear underwater shot each. It is pretty powerful and never tested in battle.

I think as the beginning Russia will restrict itself to evacuation plans that may come before the US strike, depending on the larger plan of Kremlin. Until now they wanted to stop US by means of meetings and UNSC veto. By now it is clear US goes to war without UNSC agreement. So it is logical to expect some evolution in the Russian position as well. I bet the first thing they will do is evacuation, it is not something never mentioned by them. Once the tomahawks start flying it will be pretty dangerous for any evacuation team to walk around.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I would bet with you on this



Russia “will help Syria” in the event of a military strike, Putin stressed as he responded to a reporter’s question at the summit.


Thouse are words of Mr Vladimir Putin..

rt.com...

I think in this poker game Mr. McCain has maybe a street, but Russians may have even great poker



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
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.


Actually, missiles that "zig-zag" have to slow down at a tremendous rate in order to make that maneuver. I'm sure that Aegis systems are more than capable of countering this threat. Let's not forget that the Aegis system is continually upgraded to protect AC carriers which cost billions to build and billions more just to maintain over the years. They do not make a habit of sending these carriers out without adequate protection against any and all threats...I have a bit more faith in the USN than you do when it comes to their countermeasures.

Aegis is also not the only defense a carrier strike group has. Their are various naval assets, such as subs, as well as various assets in the air (electronic warfare, even an airborne laser platform specially designed to shoot down ICBMs, strategic bombers, etc.). A good defense is also a good offense. The US has UCAV's B-1Bs (a better, updated version of the Tupolev "blackjack" equivalent) B2's, etc. The American strategic bomber force and overall air-force is far more superior to what Russia currently is fielding. People seem to be under the mistaken impression that it will be the USN on its heels trying to defend itself. If a naval war were to break out, Russia will not be the one sitting back and allowed to take pop-shots off at the USN. It will come at a heavy cost to them...likely the total destruction of their naval assets in the region...

The Tomahawk bloc IV for instance will be Russias (and Syrais if it comes to it) worst nightmare.




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.


Technological progress does not stand still. Like it or not, lasers are the future for defense. And What we see today will be greatly expanded on over the coming years.
edit on 6-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by meaningless333
I think that Moskva could be there to provide some cover against US Tomahawks fired from ships and subs.

The Moskva has some 64 SA-N-6 that are the naval equivalent to Russian Army´s S-300PMU SAM system and this system has some anti-missile capability.


No, the Moskva, nor any of the other Russian ships has no capability to shoot down Tomahawk missiles; unless they happen to come very close to the engagement horizon for the SAM's AND the Russians know about the launch in advance.

A missile does not spend a very long time in one's engagement envelope, so you have to know what you are looking for, assign it on your air search radar, engage it Line of Sight with your fire control radar and maintain a lock until final phase seeker.

The Tomahawk flies very low such that it cannot be seen over the horizon from the Air Search Radar and cannot be painted by the fire control system.

A SAM is defensive in nature, not strategic.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by meaningless333
I think that Moskva could be there to provide some cover against US Tomahawks fired from ships and subs.

The Moskva has some 64 SA-N-6 that are the naval equivalent to Russian Army´s S-300PMU SAM system and this system has some anti-missile capability.


Russia does not possess the capability to shoot down Tomahawks, especially the block IV. Not only are they fast and possess radar jam capability, but they literally can skim 10ft off the ground making them impossible to target.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 


That laser is a joke.

As as already been explained repeatedly, the defensive weapon systems themselves are not the problem, it's their inability to engage sufficient targets in a swarm of missiles, before those missiles reduce the defending vessel to a blazing hulk.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rock427

Russia does not possess the capability to shoot down Tomahawks, especially the block IV. Not only are they fast and possess radar jam capability, but they literally can skim 10ft off the ground making them impossible to target.


Tomahawks are not considered fast, relative to other missiles, any ways. They are subsonic.

Also, nobody skims missiles 10ft off the deck in the Med...you would hit a wave before you hit your target. That place is a cluster f**k of conflicting swells, many well above 10ft.

Granted, you don't need to run at 10ft to be below most radar.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by squarehead666
 


"That" laser is only the beginning of whats to come for defensive systems. They are undoubtedly the future as they offer a defense capability that operates at the speed of light. Give it another 10-15 years.

As for the rest of your post, Russias navy would be a smoldering mess the second they launched.. The tomahawk block IV would absolutely wreck the Russian navy.
edit on 6-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rock427
reply to post by squarehead666
 


"That" laser is only the beginning of whats to come for defensive systems. They are undoubtedly the future as they offer a defense capability that operates at the speed of light. Give it another 10-15 years.

As for the rest of your post, Russias navy would be a smoldering mess the second they launched.. The tomahawk block IV would absolutely wreck the Russian navy.
edit on 6-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)


Incorrect on many counts.

Never under estimate your enemy.

The Russian ships are very capable and should be treated as such. In fact, I would go in so far as to treat them just as capable as any of my ships, which I'm sure the Navy brass is actually doing.

Complete side, lasers, like any weapon have pluses and minuses. They also have counter measures. There is a reason the Navy is not relying on them to be any more then just another layer in a very layered defence.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 


And how pray, do future developments of that puny little laser defend US ships from Moskit missiles right now?

The Russian ships are just as obsolete as the US ships.....It's all about the anti-ship missile swarms, which can be surface, submarine or air launched.
edit on 6-9-2013 by squarehead666 because: s&p



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rock427

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
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.


Actually, missiles that "zig-zag" have to slow down at a tremendous rate in order to make that maneuver. I'm sure that Aegis systems are more than capable of countering this threat. Let's not forget that the Aegis system is continually upgraded to protect AC carriers which cost billions to build and billions more just to maintain over the years. They do not make a habit of sending these carriers out without adequate protection against any and all threats...I have a bit more faith in the USN than you do when it comes to their countermeasures.

Aegis is also not the only defense a carrier strike group has. Their are various naval assets, such as subs, as well as various assets in the air (electronic warfare, even an airborne laser platform specially designed to shoot down ICBMs, strategic bombers, etc.). A good defense is also a good offense. The US has UCAV's B-1Bs (a better, updated version of the Tupolev "blackjack" equivalent) B2's, etc. The American strategic bomber force and overall air-force is far more superior to what Russia currently is fielding. People seem to be under the mistaken impression that it will be the USN on its heels trying to defend itself. If a naval war were to break out, Russia will not be the one sitting back and allowed to take pop-shots off at the USN. It will come at a heavy cost to them...likely the total destruction of their naval assets in the region
The Tomahawk bloc IV for instance will be Russias (and Syrais if it comes to it) worst nightmare.




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.


Technological progress does not stand still. Like it or not, lasers are the future for defense. And What we see today will be greatly expanded on over the coming years.
edit on 6-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

...
I don't The Serbs did a fine job at making AGM88 "think" they were going towards radar when in reality the were flying into home microwave ovens, that were "tweaked" to operate with their doors open.


That's one of the MAIN reasons the S-300PMU-2's/S-300PMU-3's (aka S-400's) WERE fielded to counter.


Russia Scalars are waiting, you can choose to wish/believe other wise, but were are headed for a major U.S.upset in the next BIG war, I'm convinced U.S.A./U.K. are in the last days of being anything of a super-economical/military powers.
edit on 6-9-2013 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rock427

Originally posted by meaningless333
I think that Moskva could be there to provide some cover against US Tomahawks fired from ships and subs.

The Moskva has some 64 SA-N-6 that are the naval equivalent to Russian Army´s S-300PMU SAM system and this system has some anti-missile capability.


Russia does not possess the capability to shoot down Tomahawks, especially the block IV. Not only are they fast and possess radar jam capability, but they literally can skim 10ft off the ground making them impossible to target.

WHAT is sam hill do you think SS-27's do?
Ahh you do know that Serbia shot down a number of T.H.C.M's right, I'll look into Iraq in 91 also, I don't know if the did but I think I read some-where they did.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2012newstart
reply to post by meaningless333
 

although it could do so, I don't think Moskva or any other Russian ship will engage in direct interception of the American tomahawks.

Rather, it assures strategic presence. According to the scenarios that could range from

1.Mass evacuation of Russian and Russian-related families that number a total of 100,000 persons living in Syria, by ships to Cyprus and then by plane - the plan was discussed already and trained by Russian landing ships

2. Intelligence gathering for the Syrian ground based missiles Yakhont and others, they are all Russian kind of electronics and compatible with onboard radars. In other words, while the US tomahawks fly towards Syria, the Syrian Yakhonts may sink some ships.

3. The doomsday scenario where every missile and torpedo are considered nuclear armed. Remember the Cuban crisis and the nuclear armed subs at that time. They were outdated in today's standards yet they had 1 nuclear underwater shot each. It is pretty powerful and never tested in battle.

I think as the beginning Russia will restrict itself to evacuation plans that may come before the US strike, depending on the larger plan of Kremlin. Until now they wanted to stop US by means of meetings and UNSC veto. By now it is clear US goes to war without UNSC agreement. So it is logical to expect some evolution in the Russian position as well. I bet the first thing they will do is evacuation, it is not something never mentioned by them. Once the tomahawks start flying it will be pretty dangerous for any evacuation team to walk around.


It seems more like intelligence gathering and weapons targeting than evacuation.

Russian ship can provide targeting information and guidance for Yakhont missile.

A shore based battery cannot work without guidance from forward observers.

The presence of Russian ships increases risks for US operations. However that does not mean US will stop. Russia does not have credibility is the eyes of NATO, and they can just decide to ignore Russian presence.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
To 2012 newstart:

Agreed!

End of reply.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I just hope that Barack Obama backs off.
The last thing the world needs is another greedy war that will benefit only the Bankers, the oil companies and the Military-Industrial Complex.

The US really needs to review its priorities.
The US economy is a mess and on the financial aspect...well... it need to be rebooted.
Obama seems to think that to solve all the economic and financial problems it´s just a matter of printing more bills!

As many have already said on this thread, US finances (not Economy) are on chinese hands, a lot of countries are thinking on creating another world reference currency or get back to gold standard.

The Western economies need to review WTA (World Trade Agreement) in order to rebalance the world´s economy.
The western countries need to restart (and enlarge) their primary and secondary economic sectors.
Otherwise western economies wont generate enough employment and wealth to allow for sufficient economic growth. Just take a look to the disappearing middle-classes and the collapse of small villages and medium towns.

The US military adventures of the last 50 have costed a big lot of money that could (and should) have been spent on american people and I am speechless about the amount of deaths that those wars generated on all sides.
One of the most striking images that recall from my firts trip to France as a kid was to see a beautiful meadow full of whites crosses (a military cemetery from WW2). I´ll never forget that image and the sadness I felt by thinking that each cross represented a life.

Who´s profiting with the Syrian civil war?
Who are the rebels? What they up to when/if they get the power?
We dont even know who is using chemical weapons (probably both sides).
And who´s feeding them with this stuff and know-how?

Bashar Assad is a brutal dictator but is he the only one?
US should seek other ways of getting Assad out of the power.

Think about the cost (financial and human lives) of Vietnam, Granada, Irak (2003) and Afghanistan.
Is it worthy?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
Incorrect on many counts.

Never under estimate your enemy.

The Russian ships are very capable and should be treated as such. In fact, I would go in so far as to treat them just as capable as any of my ships, which I'm sure the Navy brass is actually doing.

Complete side, lasers, like any weapon have pluses and minuses. They also have counter measures. There is a reason the Navy is not relying on them to be any more then just another layer in a very layered defence.


I would hope that any commander worth his weight in brass would not underestimate his or her enemy. That isn't my point... I'm simply pointing out the strengths that many here seem to be underestimating. If anything, the largest most advanced Navy on the planet is somehow being relegated to second best by many on this forum.

Until very recently, most of the Russian navy was rotting away in dry docks while the US kept up its qualitative edge by spending countless billions maintaining that qualitative competitive edge and in many cases EXTENDING it. I'm simply pointing out this clear advantage that the USN has over pretty much EVERY navy in the world.

Russia is in the process of rebuilding its Navy. By comparison to the US today, I'd say the Soviet Navy was better equipped to deal with the US navy than the current Russian Navy is...


Originally posted by squarehead666
reply to post by rock427
 


And how pray, do future developments of that puny little laser defend US ships from Moskit missiles right now?


The US is leading in the development of lasers. They already have a chemical based airborne laser mounted to a 747 capable of shooting down multiple ICBM's. They very recently successfully tested another airborne laser onboard a C130 that was capable of melting a tanks armor from 5 miles out. And THEL; which is a ground based laser -- recently has shown an ability to destroy anything from a rockets/missiles all the way down to artillery shells in mid flight. These advances like all technological advances are accelerating and exponential. My point is that future ABMD systems will make pretty much all conventional rockets/ICBMs/missiles, etc obsolete on the future battlefield.


The Russian ships are just as obsolete as the US ships.....It's all about the anti-ship missile swarms, which can be surface, submarine or air launched.


It would likely take more missiles than the very small Russian navy has (logistical reasons) to overrun an Aegis let alone SIX of them...And Submarines are probably one of the best assets a carrier strike group has. Again, a good defense is a good offense.


Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

I don't The Serbs did a fine job at making AGM88 "think" they were going towards radar when in reality the were flying into home microwave ovens, that were "tweaked" to operate with their doors open.
That's one of the MAIN reasons the S-300PMU-2's/S-300PMU-3's (aka S-400's) WERE fielded to counter.


Its funny that you say that, because the US did not have this problem with the AGM88 in Iraq...This is one of the biggest bunk propaganda stories going around. The Serbs did not use microwave ovens to decoy anti-radiation missiles...


Russia Scalars are waiting, you can choose to wish/believe other wise, but were are headed for a major U.S.upset in the next BIG war, I'm convinced U.S.A./U.K. are in the last days of being anything of a super-economical/military powers.


Of course you think that way...Why wouldn't someone who ascribes to Serbian propaganda? I'll bet you $5,000 (in 2013 dollars) right now that in twenty years time, the US will still remain as the worlds preeminent world power.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by johncarter
It is accompanied by Destroyers, Fregats and a couple of nuclear Typhoon class subs


So why would Russia be sending SSBN's - who do they plan to nuke?

Putin really wants a war by the sound of it!

its probably there to wipe out Israel suadis etc if Russia gets nuked



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
It's a foregone conclusion that Syria WILL be hit by NATO or some coalition consisting of the US, Britain, France and maybe a few other's. I don't think the Russians will retaliate militarily and risk a massive nuclear exchange with the US/NATO! In addition Israel is a nuclear power with not just nuclear bombs, but thermonuclear (hydrogen bombs) in the multi megaton range with ICBM's to deliver them! Even Putin realizes the consequences of such an exchange, since that would effectively put an end to both the US and Russia as world powers! In addition to that it would leave both countries vulnerable to being occupied by China, Russia would go first given their proximity and the ease which China would be able to mobilize it's conventional forces across the border with Russia. The US would also be vulnerable to takeover, though with Canada to the North and Mexico to the South, it wouldn't be as easy as Russia, because of the geographical factors and if Canada and Mexico are not destroyed as well, then they would probably resist any incursion as best they could since both countries have numerous relations in the US, not to mention needed resources! If the Russians are crazy enough to get into a nuclear war with the US and others then our future will be very dark indeed! Let's hope that even if Syria is bombed that cooler heads prevail as far as the Russians and the US are concerned........



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by r0nsix

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by johncarter
It is accompanied by Destroyers, Fregats and a couple of nuclear Typhoon class subs


So why would Russia be sending SSBN's - who do they plan to nuke?

Putin really wants a war by the sound of it!

its probably there to wipe out Israel suadis etc if Russia gets nuked


Russia does not need to launch any ballistic missiles.

As I said earlier, the risk is counter-force action. You tell me what will US do if couple of US ships are sunk?



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SicknessofChoice
 


I doubt US will escalate to nuclear.

US did lose bombers while bombing Serbia. That did not lead to nuclear war.

If US launches missiles at Syria, Syria can launch missiles at US ships.




top topics



 
46
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join