Russian vs. USA Tech

Originally posted by jetsetter


No, I have just researched and it is doing well. It has performed interceptions and has performed them well.

even if its doinf well it can beat the s-300.

go look at the facts.

Ok here is the next one.

Kreml class Aircraft Carrier Cruiser vs CVN-68 Nimitz-class


Photos:





Facts:
Specifications
Designer: Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau
Builder: Nikolayev South
Displacement (tons): 43,000 tons light
53,000-55,000 tons standard
66,600-67,500 tons full load
Speed (kts): 32 knots
Dimensions (m): 302.3-306.45 meters long overall
270.0-281.0 meters long at waterline
35.4-38.0 meters beam
72.0-73.0 meters width overall
9.14-11.0 meters draft
Propulsion: 2 x 50'000 hp gas. turbines; 8 boilers; 4 fixed pitch props., turbogenerators 9 x 1500 kW, diesel gen. 6 x 1500 kW; range: 3'850 n.m/32 kts; endurance: 45 days
Crew: 1960 + 626 air group + 40 flag
3857 rooms
Armament:
Airwing: 16 x Yak-141
12 aircraft SU-27k or MIG-29k
4 /Helicopter KA-27LD32
18/KA-27PLO
2/KA-27S
Missiles: 12 Granit (SS-N-19)
SA Klinok ADAM system (24 launchers, 192 vertical launch missiles; rate of fire: 1 missile per 3 sec)
SA Kashtan ADGM system (256 AD missiles, 48'000 cartiges; range: 0.5- 1.5 km)

Guns: 8 x 6 AK-630 gattl. AA
(6x30 mm; 6'000 rds/m/mount, 24000 cartiges)
Electronics: Combat Information Center
Aviation Combat Information Center
communications suite including satellite communications
MR-710 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3D Air/Surface Search
2 MR-320M Topaz/Strut Pair 2D Air/Surface Search
3 Palm Frond Navigation
4 MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword SA-N-9 Fire Control
8 3P37/Hot Flash SA-N-11 Fire Control
Fly Trap B Aircraft Control
Zvezda-2 search and attack sonar [medium and low frequency bands]
MGK-345 Bronza/Ox Yoke hull mounted Sonars

Other: UDAV-1 ASW RL (60 rockets; R: 3'000 m)

Photos:





Specifications

Builder Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant Two Nuclear Power Plant (A4W Pressurized Water Reactor)
Four shafts, Four propellers, with five blades each
Length, overall 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement Approx. 97,000 tons (87,300 metric tons) full load
Speed 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Aircraft 85
Aircraft elevators Four
Catapults Four
Armament 4 Sea Sparrow launchers
3 Phalanx CIWS 20mm mounts [Nimitz & Ike]
4 Phalanx CIWS 20mm mounts [Vinson and later]
Combat Systems SPS-48E 3-D air search radar
SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search radar
3 Mk91 Fire Control

Multi-Function Radar (MFR) [CVN-77]
Volume Search Radar (VSR) [CVN-77]

AN/SLQ-32(V)4 active jamming/deception
AN/WLR-1H ESM
Service Life 50 years
Crew Ship's Company: 3,200
Air Wing: 2,480
Departments
Administrative
Aircraft Maintenance
Air
Chaplain
Combat Systems
Deck
Dental
Engineering
Legal
Maintenance
Medical
Navigation
Operations
Public Affairs
Reactor
Safety
Supply
Training
Weapons



Unit Operating Cost
Annual Average ~$160,000,000 [source: [FY1996 VAMOSC]
Total Costs
[$millions
constant $FY97]


Investment cost
Ship acquisition cost $ 4,059
Midlife modernization cost $ 2,382
Total investment cost $ 6,441
Average annual investment cost $ 129

Operating and support cost
Direct operating and support cost $11,677
Indirect operating and support cost $ 3,205
Total operating and support cost $14,882
Average annual operating and support cost $ 298

Inactivation/disposal cost
Inactivation/disposal cost $ 887
Spent nuclear fuel storage cost $ 13
Total inactivation/disposal cost $ 899
Average annual inactivation/disposal cost $ 18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total life-cycle cost $22,222
Average annual life-cycle cost $ 444

[source: GAO]



For this I would have to go with the United States. The Russians had a 80ton carrier planed but they never wen through with it. Their mistake.

in your picture, it is Admiral kuznetsov carrier

97,000 vs 67,000 tons fully loaded?


i think thats not a fair compare


find a smaller US carrier.

You have to love american tech!

The Stryker can be penetrated by the russian ww2 PTRD anti tank rifle. The Stryker 105 has to have its turret removed for C-130 transportation. Meanwhile, the russian BTR-90M, a BTR-90 with a modified with a 100mm gun, a 30mm gun, and some ATGM's, carries troops and is amphibious!

Some russian tech is almost as good as US tech?! Well some american vehicles can ALMOST survive a hit by the 40 year old RPG-7!

Su-35 with additional pylons (which are easily possible) carries exactly twice as much AAM's as the F-15!

Well the Stryker is ment to be trasported on small cargo planes.

WITH ITS TURRET REMOVED AND WITH ONLY THE BASIC ARMOR THAT PTRD CAN PENETRATE, YES IT CAN BE TRANSPORTED IN C-130'S..

[Edited on 17-10-1983 by bisonn]

Well here is the next smaller thing:






LHD-1 Wasp class


Specifications
Power Plant Two boilers (600 PSI), two geared steam turbines,
two shafts, 70,000 shaft horsepower
LHD-8 General Electric [GE] "LM 2500 plus" gas turbine engines
Length 844 feet (253.2 meters)
Beam 106 feet (31.8 meters) at waterline
200 feet w/flight deck elevators extended
Draft 27 feet Maximum (Full Load)
36 feet at the stern [ballasted]
Displacement Approx. 40,500 tons (36,450 metric tons) full load
Speed 20+ knots (23.5+ miles per hour)
Range 9,500 nm @ 20 knots
Fuel 6,200 tons, plus
1,232 tons aircraft fuel
Aircraft (Actual mix depends upon mission)

RECENT DEPLOYMENTS
12 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
4 - CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters
2 - UH-1N Huey helicopters [3 on 11 MEU WestPac 01-1]
4 - AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopter
6 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes [none on 11 MEU WestPac 01-1]

OR
12 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
9 - CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters
4 - UH-1N Huey helicopters
4 - AH-1W SuperCobra attack helicopter
6 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes

OR
12 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
9 - CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters
6 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes

OR
Assault
42 - CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters

OR
Sea Control
20 - AV-8B Harrier attack planes
6 - ASW helicopters
Landing Craft 2 LCU Landing Craft, Utility or
3 LCAC Landing Craft, Air Cushion or
6 LCM-8 Landing Craft, Mechanized or
40 AAV Amphibious Assault Vehicle [normal] or
61 AAV Amphibious Assault Vehicle [stowed]

Armament 2 - MK29 launchers for NATO Sea Sparrow
3 - MK15 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts
8 - MK33 .50 cal. machine guns
Combat and Control Systems AN/SLQ-49 Chaff Bouys
AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE Towed Torpedo Countermeasures
SRS-1 Combat D/F
AN/SLQ-32(V)3 Electronic Warfare (EW) system
1 AN/SPS-48 radar
1 AN/SPS-49(V)7 radar
1 AN/SPS-64 radar
1 AN/SPS-67 radar
AN/SYS-2 Detection/Tracking System
1 MK-23 Target Acquisition System (TAS)
1 MK-36 Chaff Launcher
MK-91 Fire control System
Crew 104 officers + 1,004 enlisted Ships Company
1,075 Ships Company crewmembers
1,600-1,894 Marine Detachment embarked troops Departments
Aircraft Maintenance
Air
Combat Systems
Deck
Dental
Engineering
Executive
Medical
Navigation
Operations
Religious Ministries
Supply

Info from: www.globalsecurity.org...

I dont know if this counts because it is the worlds largest amphibious ships in the world.

Ok maybe the CV-63 Kitty Hawk class. They are very old though.




Specifications
Power Plant Eight boilers, four geared steam turbines, four shafts, 280,000 shaft horsepower
Length, overall 1062.5 feet (323.8 meters)
Flight Deck Width 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam 130 feet (39 meters)
Displacement Approx. 80,800 tons (72,720 metric tons) full load
Approx. 78,500 tons (72,720 metric tons) full load CV-66 America
Speed 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Aircraft 85
Crew Ship's Company: 3,150 - Air Wing: 2,480
Armament Sea Sparrow missiles
3 Phalanx CIWS 20mm mounts
Combat Systems SPS-48C
SPS-49
SPS-10f or
SPS-67
3 Mk91 Fire Control
SLQ-29 EW
WLR- 1 ESM
WLR-11 ESM


Unit Operating Cost
Annual Average ~$141,000,000 [source: [FY1996 VAMOSC]


Info from: www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by Russian
97,000 vs 67,000 tons fully loaded?

i think thats not a fair compare


find a smaller US carrier.

How about a larger Russian Carrier?

........I thought so....

Here is info on the big Russian carrier project




All info from www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by Chroniclev

Originally posted by Russian
97,000 vs 67,000 tons fully loaded?

i think thats not a fair compare


find a smaller US carrier.

How about a larger Russian Carrier?

........I thought so....

carriers are too expensive and easy to lose, ulyanovsk was bigger but it was scrapped in 1993.

Here is the text on it

Project 1143.7 Orel Ul'yanovsk class
Initial design work on a full-deck nuclear-powered aircraft began in 1973 under Project #1153 "Orel", which envisioned catapult-launched aircraft such as the MiG-23K fighter and Su-25K attack aircraft. The ship would have displaced 80,000 tons and carried as many as 70 aircraft. Following the death of Defense Minister Marshal Grechko, who had sponsored the project, the Defense Ministry was taken over by Marshal Ustinov, who did not share his predecessor's priorities. This Project 1153 effort was terminated in 1983.

Plans for a large-deck carrier were subsequently revived under Project #1143.7, which was undertaken at the Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau beginning in 1984. The carrier was laid down in November 1988, but with the end of the Cold War the project was cancelled in November 1991. At that time construction was about 45% complete, and scrapping began in February 1992. The metal prepared for building the second ship of this class was also scrapped.


Specifications
Designer: Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau
Builder: Nikolayev South
Length 1065 feet overall
995 feet waterline
Flight Deck Width 248.5 feet
Beam 130.6 feet
Draft 35.4 feet
Displacement 79,758 tons Full Load
60,000 tons Standard
Propulsion PWR nuclear reactors
4 turbines 240,000 shp
Endurance
Max Speed 30+ knots
Crew 2,300 Navy
1,500 Naval Air
Armament 6 x 30mm/65 AK 630
24 VLS ADAM launchers w/192 RZ-130 Kinzhal/Klinok/SA-N-9 Gauntlet missiles
8 CADS-N-1/Kortik each with 1 twin 30mm Gatlingcombined w/ 256 3M-88/SA-N-11 Grison
12 cell VLS installed under the upper deckw/12 P-500 Granit/SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles
2 RPK-5/Udav-1 Liven integrated ASW

Countermeasures Sozbezie-BR suite
Wine Glass intercept
Bell Push intercept
Flat Track
Bell Nip
Cross Loop D/F

Radar Air/Surface Search
MR-710 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3D
2 MR-320M Topaz/Strut Pair 2D
Navigation
3 Palm Frond Fire Control

4 MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword SA-N-9 control
8 3P37/Hot Flash SA-N-11 control
Aircraft Control
Fly Trap B

Sonar Zvezda-2 suite
MGK-345 Bronza/Ox Yoke hull mounted

Aircraft 70 aircraft total
27 Su-27K Flankers
10 Su-25 Frogfoots
Yak-44 radar picket aircraft
15-20 helicopters

To bad it was never produced

As always info is from www.globalsecurity.org...

"Su-35 with additional pylons (which are easily possible) carries exactly twice as much AAM's as the F-15!"

I really don't care if it can carry 10x the weapons payload of the F-15.....the more, the heavier! The heavier, the less mobility and maneuverability!
IT don't matter anyhow, it'll all boil down to the pilot and his training and in the CASE of the Russian pilot....40 hrs a year isn't going to cut it!
F-15K with AESA or without AESA will make toast of that Su-35!
Btw...whats the production numbers on that SU-35 anyhow?
That thing couldn't even whip a F-16 BLK60 series.......


regards
seekerof

Flanker series aircraft, especially those with 3D thrust vectoring, outfly F-15 like no tommorow, K?

Prove it!
40 hours a year ISN't GOING to CUT IT!!.
Face reality....its not hard...really...!
What are the production numbers on it and show me that it will beat a F-15K AESA.
Show me that the Russian Air Force trains its pilots more than 40 hours a year.
As with most everything you guys harp about, they are so limited in numbers, that their battlefield implications are virtually nil......their either prototypes....are projects that have yet to be built.....
The Russian military, air force, and navy is in a state of dis-repair, lack of moral, lack of training, lack of supplies and replacement equipment, ETC! But you guys want to talk what can kick whats butt!?!? Please...........for pete's sake......the truth is brutal but you guys need to make a reality check here....seriously!


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Prove it!
40 hours a year ISN't GOING to CUT IT!!.
Face reality....its not hard...really...!
What are the production numbers on it and show me that it will beat a F-15K AESA.
Show me that the Russian Air Force trains its pilots more than 40 hours a year.
As with most everything you guys harp about, they are so limited in numbers, that their battlefield implications are virtually nil......their either prototypes....are projects that have yet to be built.....
The Russian military, air force, and navy is in a state of dis-repair, lack of moral, lack of training, lack of supplies and replacement equipment, ETC! But you guys want to talk what can kick whats butt!?!? Please...........for pete's sake......the truth is brutal but you guys need to make a reality check here....seriously!


regards
seekerof

please find me where you found that they train 40 hours a year

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Russian]

Which US sub can compare to the 941 TYPHOON?

40 hours a year was from 1993, its a bit better now. Russia has hundreds of flankers BTW.

Malaysia chose to by the Su-30MK rather than more hornets or eagles. Wonder why? Decent electronics, 14 AAM's, 3D thrust vectoring, and one of the most agile fighters in the world!

Originally posted by Russian
Which US sub can compare to the 941 TYPHOON?

Which US sub can compare with the new Borei (supposedly 2 or 3 times more powerufl than typhoon)?