VMF vs. USN scenarios

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

hoom wrote:

assuming that the Dzirkiy corvettes are armed with both Poliment Redoute

Redut but not Poliment.
Poliment is the radar on Gorshkov, 20386 will have a different radar system 'Zaslon' (Barrier) so it'll be Zaslon-Redut.

96 Subsonic missiles that don't get through a ships defences are not better than 16 supersonic missiles that do

Even PtG is not going to be able to handle that kind of salvo coming in simultaneous & multi-direction.
Gorshkov certainly won't be shooting down 96* with only 32 SAMs.

People give too little credit to missiles being high-subsonic. Its far from easy to hit something flying at 850ish km/h few m above sea surface. I am actually doubtful any ship in the would would survive 12 missile salvo of Harpoons, one would go through no matter what.

Good, so if you think that no ship can survive a 12 missile salvo, then what do you think aout the survival chance against 2.5-5 mach fast missile salvo?

if 12 harpoon enought, then 2-4 onix should be enought against any ship : )


Means the Kuznetsov can single handed kill a complete carrier group.

Lets look at it this way, what are chances of Kuz ever getting into position of using Granits aganist USN? Quite slim IMHO.

Carrier groups are often over 20 ships in wartime actually.

It needs to get 600-1000km distance.

not impossible feat.

But it can not kill a 20 ship group alone. 16 granit is not enought for that.

It can kill a 5-6 ship group alone : )


And I think you miss the point: IF 12 harpoon enough to kill any ship then what can be the effect of 16 granit?

Considering the harpoon has something like 50-70 km range, the granit has 500-1000 km range.


The granit has as big range as the nimitz f/a-18 with the harpoon together .


Simple math, isn't it?

Harpoon Block II has range of 125ish km from what i recall.

There are only 12 Granits on Kuz, not 16 and it has 600ish km range.

Two Harpoons, 3 drop tanks... can probably ferry 3000 km.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

All I said was that Mach 2.5 is not what makes the Onyx special. I fact you have the SM-6 which can be launched from ABs and target ships as well as cruise missiles and it has a speed of Mach 3.5 with over 350 km range. So it's unwise to think certain Soviet legacy weapons have any serious relevance anymore, beyond being the standard naval threat that they are for the USN. Their capabilities used to be impressive, not anymore. And yes there's are ways in dealing with Onyx-equipped vessels, physics is not a problem here.

Great, so the AB has long range rocket with similar capabilities ,and chances to kill an over the horizon aircraft like the 1950s vintage SA-75 that shoot down the U-2 in 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina

Speed Mach 3.5

So, what is your point?

It was impossible to shoot down the SA-71 with a 3.5 match SAM , but it is possible to shoot doen a 3-4 match small ,agile rocket with a 3.5 match SAM?


Why ? Can you explain it?

Due to the nationality of the SAM?
Maybe it has a passport,and if the front of it contain the worlds "U.S.A." then laws of physic give allowance?

guy is living on assumptions and bullshit rhetoric. The onyx is a solid system hence its use for Bashtion. If the Russians weren't sure of it, they would have replaced it, not expand it. Same goes for India with its use of Bhramos which is Onyx.

He thinks US had its hands on it. Well, they did with early S-300's yet still shit themselves over it. They also admit having difficulty dealing with an older variant.

But whatever. When one lives in assumed make belief land, all rainbow magic dreams come true.

Militarov wrote:

Harpoon Block II has range of 125ish km from what i recall.

There are only 12 Granits on Kuz, not 16 and it has 600ish km range.

Two Harpoons, 3 drop tanks... can probably ferry 3000 km.

lets start:
-no one know the grait range.Actualy , only very few person know any confirmed data about the range of any currently in service weapon system.

Granit is a 7 tonns monster, equivalent of a small aircraft.

The SR-71 is 30 years older than the granit, more complex, and has 10 times longer distance by wiki.

So, by common sense the granit should have 1000 km+ range and 3-6 match .
Ok,so an us airplane can ferry 3000 km,attack a russian ship and land an a russian airfield,or do a kamikaze .So?

Their capabilities used to be impressive, not anymore

Not that Granit from 1980s became less impressive so much as US finally post 2010 has missiles that can deal with it.

Carrier groups are often over 20 ships in wartime actually.

Probably not since Vietnam.
Several groups combined certainly & they can absolutely do that but not 20+ for a single CV.

I have just read some posts of the last days and have realized how this debate has completely lost the most feeble connection with reality.

Let me search to point out some "fixed points" about the CONPS and the defensive/offensive weapon suit available to Arley Burke class :


1) Arleigh Burke is a very highly specialized anti-air defense destroyer mostly conceived to defend aircraft carriers and ballistic/cruise submarine in theirs operation's air space and to provide a secondary long range ground attack capability to those main elements.

2) Arleigh Burke therefore has been equipped ,initially, only with truly "symbolic" antiship and CIWS weapon suit (Flight I) that completely disappeared -only to point out how specialized is the CONPOS of this class of ship - in Flight II and Flight III representing the very bulk of the class.

3) The Arley Burke with "96 VLS" - Flight II and Flight III - lack today not only any kind of antiship capability (how i have pointed previopusly out the entire US Navy doctrine depend entirely on carrieir's Air Wing for similar missions) and at-sea capability to resupply  but also any type of specialized CIWS and here we do not talk of something so advanced as a combined missile-artillery system such as "Каштан-М" or "Палаш", but as simple like a "Phalanx" CIWS.....
At today even a sub-1000 tons dispalcement  «Буян-М» has incomparably higher antiship capabilities than AB destroyers. I know this can appear odd but , as explained before, that is the direct effect of the strict AD commitments formulated in the initial design layout of that class of ships.

4) Talking of future -post 2020 - has been pointed out as US Navy analysts have realized that carrier's survivability was not more in stake only against nuclear power enemies (against which anyhow aircraft carrier's military relevance was practically not-existent since at least '60 years) but also against emerging powers, that could effectively prevent ,in a totally conventional way, the employment of the pressure element represented by CVBG presence in theirs theatre ,central for the US foreign policy's vision and influence around the globe, through a progressively faster proliferation of advanced anti-ship missiles surpassing ,even in theirs export versions, of several times the parameters of domestic US Navy ones ; this situation generated the urgency of a plan to quickly provide some kind of long range anti-surface ship capabilities to theirs surface combatants.
Lacking the very complex technical knowledge pool necessary to create a true anti-ship missile at the level of those available today to competitors, the stop-gap solution came in the form of two possible adaptation of existing missiles designed and optimized for totally different CONOPS : AGM-158 and BGM-109.


Someone here has come to the point to make a comparison of 96 (from the total 96 tubes avilables ) of those adapted AGM-158 or BGM-109 in the post 2020 available to AB destroyers with the antiship complement of a пр. 22350.

Leaving even a part the enormous difference in mere technical parameters ,range included, between domestic П-800 or 3M-54 and the up-mentioned adapted missiles - for the less "aware" here i recall that from an analysis of the metrics of foreign and domestic samples by part of a leading domestic Institute was comupted that closing speed and terminal G-pull limitis of a sea skimming missile accounted for the variation of probability of interception by part of various classes of ship-borne AD systems from six to eight times of the aggregate of all other features present on those AShM combined - i want to remember that none in its sane mind would ever mount in the future 96 LRASM on AB destroyers for the simple reason that in this way a simple Проект 636 or even a pair of the up mentioned «Буян-М» could single-handedly eliminate with a probability next to 100% an entire naval group composed by those destroyers with minimal to absent risk exposure for themselves.

Those 96 VL tubes represent the entire offensive/defensive potential available to today Arleigh Burke destroyers ,including medium and close range anti-air self-defence  taking into account that AB lack ,as explained, CIWS even at level of smallest frigates ; therefore the VLS missile composition will forcibly be in the traditional 1/3 -2/3 between anti-ship or land attack missiles and air defense ones of various kind.

The first 28* have 8* Harpoon & all the ones built with no Phalanx have had at least 1* added (pretty sure 'fitted for but not with' the 2nd).
Didn't actually realise Harpoon was removed entirely for the 2A though rather than just 'not with'

How else can you answer the question: 'What is the anti-ship firepower of a LRASM equipped AB?' other than 'Anything up to 96 missiles'?
Any lower number is arbitrary & could be disproven by simply loading more, this is the nature of a universal VLS.
The answer for Gorshkov is more limited 'up to 16*'

The point of the comparison was that someone said 'Russia should make sure Gorshkov has at least 1/2 the firepower of an AB'.

Mindstorm wrote:i want to remember that [b]none in its sane mind would ever mount in the future 96 LRASM on AB destroyers for the simple reason that in this way a simple Проект 636 or even a pair of the up mentioned «Буян-М» could single-handedly eliminate with a probability next to 100% an entire naval group composed by those destroyers with minimal to absent risk exposure for themselves.

Well no, sensors are most important here. A little boat like Byan-M etc. will not find itself close enough to a blue naval group in the the first place, neither will a naval group of some ABs will ever need to approach the opposing force's littoral waters so as to risk running into coastal batteries and little boats or SSKs like that. And that 100% of yours (which is already off) is severely affected by the simple facts that eight launch tubes render those few vessels useless after launch.

The good thing with AB is that it can control vast swathes of air/sea/land space, with huge firepower, from safe distance.

hoom wrote:How else can you answer the question: 'What is the anti-ship firepower of a LRASM equipped AB?' other than 'Anything up to 96 missiles'? Suspect

That would be naturally a wrongly formulated question. Correct question on the subject would be :

" What  IS the on-board weapon potential of an Arleigh Burke destroyer  for 1)  anti-ship  2) ground attack 3) anti-air/anti missile 4) anti-submarine and  5) anti-torpedo roles ? "

Correct response would be : " 1)  8 RGM-84 for Flight I ships, none for Flight II ships , none for Flight III ships,  2) 3) and 4) 90 ,for Flight I and II, and 96 ,for Flight IIa and III/, Mk-41 VLS for a combination of BGM-109, SM-2/SM-6 , ESSM and VLA,  + 2/0/1 "Phalanx" CIWS mount for antimissile defense - and 6  Mk 46/54 light torpedos for ASuW   5)  none ".


If someone would introduce future weapons for this class of ship the questions should be reformulated in the floowing way :

" What  WILL BE  the on-board weapon potential of Arleigh Burke destroyer for 1)  anti-ship 2) anti-air/anti missile 3) ground attack 4) anti-submarine and  5) anti-torpedo roles when and if LRASM and NGLAW will be successfully completed ? "


You can respond at this question adding those two missiles for mission 1) and 2) among Mk-41 weapon selection in the up-reported response.

hoom wrote:The answer for Gorshkov is more limited 'up to 16'

Up to 16 ? Not , it is not "up to" 16 . It is always 16 AShM (moreover already today showing performances and a technological level incomparably higher than anything could be mounted on a AB in the post 2020) for the simple reason that those 16 tubes in this frigate do not "fight" for the air defense/anti missile task with the others 32 dedicated ones + the two  3М89 "Палаш" artillery/missiles installations.

KiloGolf wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:i want to remember that [b]none in its sane mind would ever mount in the future 96 LRASM on AB destroyers for the simple reason that in this way a simple Проект 636 or even a pair of the up mentioned «Буян-М» could single-handedly eliminate with a probability next to 100% an entire naval group composed by those destroyers with minimal to absent risk exposure for themselves.

Well no, sensors are most important here. A little boat like Byan-M etc. will not find itself close enough to a blue naval group in the the first place, neither will a naval group of some ABs will ever need to approach the opposing force's littoral waters so as to risk running into coastal batteries and little boats or SSKs like that. And that 100% of yours  (which is already off) is severely affected by the simple facts that eight launch tubes render those few vessels useless after launch.

The good thing with AB is that it can control vast swathes of air/sea/land space, with huge firepower, from safe distance.

Without air cover, they will detect each other at the same distance. But in a 1 vs 1 battle, Buyan or more probably Karakurt for this scenario can win if it's correctly commanded. It has 8 Oniks, 100 mm gun, igla missiles and Ak 630. The 8 Harpoons can by jammed and the small rcs of these ships helps a lot, and destroyed by the AK630 which was design for destroying harpoons during cold war and the 100mm gun can destroy one or two of them.

In the other hand, oniks was developed to be used against carrier groups (with all the data the KGB gave to the constructor about AEGIS and US missiles). So a Karakurt or Buyan has more chance to destroy the AB. If it cames to gun battle, the corvette is smaller, faster, turn better and better armed than the AB which is a bigger target. The main advantage of AB is the Helico. SM-6 can be jammed, in my opinion, easily by the big jammers of a ship. I've read somewhere that a F-111 elec warefar jammed F-22s equipement (radar and radar receivers), so the SM-6 is not that a problem.

Isos wrote:But in a 1 vs 1 battle, Buyan or more probably Karakurt for this scenario can win if it's correctly commanded.

You see that's not how the world works.

There's 63 ABs out there, 5 Buyan-M and 0 Karakurts in existence, right now.

Harsh numbers my friend. Even with no air cover those little corvettes will be eaten for lunch just by the organic Seahawks carried from FIIA onwards.

Isos wrote:SM-6 can be jammed, in my opinion, easily by the big jammers of a ship. I've read somewhere that a F-111 elec warefar jammed F-22s equipement (radar and radar receivers), so the SM-6 is not that a problem.

Anything can be jammed eventually, but right now this missile is 100% unknown quantity to the Russians. It is among the most modern gucci kit the USN is receiving and its performance is just unparalleled and highly classified.

You see that's not how the world works.

There's 63 ABs out there, 5 Buyan-M and 0 Karakurts in existence, right now.

Harsh numbers my friend. Even with no air cover those little corvettes will be eaten for lunch just by the organic Seahawks carried from FIIA onwards.

Russia has enough nuks and oniks to destroy each one them ten times. They don't need navy at all... if you want to talk about numbers. Here I was talking about the quality of the ships.

Isos wrote:Russia has enough nuks and oniks to destroy each one them ten times. They don't need navy at all... if you want to talk about numbers. Here I was talking about the quality of the ships.

1. Afaik Russia operates zero major surface vessels with Oniks, only one small fast attack craft, which is a trial vessel.
2. By that logic they only need some silos with SS-18 Satans and no armed forces whatsoever.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:But in a 1 vs 1 battle, Buyan or more probably Karakurt for this scenario can win if it's correctly commanded.

You see that's not how the world works.

There's 63 ABs out there, 5 Buyan-M and 0 Karakurts in existence, right now.

Harsh numbers my friend. Even with no air cover those little corvettes will be eaten for lunch just by the organic Seahawks carried from FIIA onwards.

Isos wrote:SM-6 can be jammed, in my opinion, easily by the big jammers of a ship. I've read somewhere that a F-111 elec warefar jammed F-22s equipement (radar and radar receivers), so the SM-6 is not that a problem.

Anything can be jammed eventually, but right now this missile is 100% unknown quantity to the Russians. It is among the most modern gucci kit the USN is receiving and its performance is just unparalleled and highly classified.

Russia building up its navy now.

up to 2014 the navy was considered as a secondary, not important things.

Now its changed.


So, pointing to the obivous current status is like telling to a student that he hasne't got the final exam, so he can't work as a solicitor.
it is obivous ,but it is inndicative about the current condition,not the future one.

In ten years time the RUN will be different thasn today.

I have to saz that the RUN improving its navy quite effectivly.

They are more cost effective now than the CCCP has been ever.

Now they are better than the US in ship design and building.

Singular_Transform wrote:Now they are better than the US in ship design and building.

Lets not go that far

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:But in a 1 vs 1 battle, Buyan or more probably Karakurt for this scenario can win if it's correctly commanded.

You see that's not how the world works.

There's 63 ABs out there, 5 Buyan-M and 0 Karakurts in existence, right now.

Harsh numbers my friend. Even with no air cover those little corvettes will be eaten for lunch just by the organic Seahawks carried from FIIA onwards.

Isos wrote:SM-6 can be jammed, in my opinion, easily by the big jammers of a ship. I've read somewhere that a F-111 elec warefar jammed F-22s equipement (radar and radar receivers), so the SM-6 is not that a problem.

Anything can be jammed eventually, but right now this missile is 100% unknown quantity to the Russians. It is among the most modern gucci kit the USN is receiving and its performance is just unparalleled and highly classified.

Since you seem to base most of your assumptions on Mars... You actually do not know if the Russians have an idea about the SM-6, you do not know whether they have a counter, and you do not know how effective the SM-6 is, and you do not know that it is unparalleled (you use these buzzwords frequently, that's bias, btw). This is reality, lets get a bit grounded eh? I know you're on an anti-bias crusade, and you're a pessimist, so rather unreliable, but you could at least try to use lateral thinking.

If we are to go from Patriot (including PAC-3) or THAAD, I would not at all be so sure. The US has only ever demonstrated mediocre ability at intercepting 60s-70s era BMs, let alone AShMs, modern BMs. This is a known fact, demonstrated frequently in the field by users of such systems, now we could take these prior experiences and project them onto recent products, or we could just take manufacturer's statements at face value (of course in doing that, you have to accept things like that the F-35 is amazing, and that the F-22 has an RCS of 0.000000000000000001m2, not really navigable territory in my book, although, your defense of projects such as the DDG1000 etc. suggest that you do). Meanwhile, Russia can intercept an Onyx fired from an unknown location (to the interceptors) and successfully wipe it out using joint sensor communication with ground based radars and 1990s MiG-31BMs. Just because the US churns out equipment around the clock does not mean they are superior, especially if much of their technology falls on deep-rooted issues that a top-heavy and corrupt MiC can not deal with.

OminousSpudd wrote:Since you seem to base most of your assumptions on Mars... You actually do not know if the Russians have an idea about the SM-6, you do not know whether they have a counter, and you do not know how effective the SM-6 is, and you do not know that it is unparalleled (you use these buzzwords frequently, that's bias, btw). This is reality, lets get a bit grounded eh? I know you're on an anti-bias crusade, and you're a pessimist, so rather unreliable, but you could at least try to use lateral thinking.

If we are to go from Patriot (including PAC-3) or THAAD, I would not at all be so sure. The US has only ever demonstrated mediocre ability at intercepting 60s-70s era BMs, let alone AShMs, modern BMs. This is a known fact, demonstrated frequently in the field by users of such systems, now we could take these prior experiences and project them onto recent products, or we could just take manufacturer's statements at face value (of course in doing that, you have to accept things like that the F-35 is amazing, and that the F-22 has an RCS of 0.000000000000000001m2, not really navigable territory in my book, although, your defense of projects such as the DDG1000 etc. suggest that you do). Meanwhile, Russia can intercept an Onyx fired from an unknown location (to the interceptors) and successfully wipe it out using joint sensor communication with ground based radars and 1990s MiG-31BMs. Just because the US churns out equipment around the clock does not mean they are superior, especially if much of their technology falls on deep-rooted issues that a top-heavy and corrupt MiC can not deal with.

I've never defended the Zum per se, in fact I think it wasn't needed.
I just didn't accept equalizing it to the disaster that the Kuz is.

Singular_Transform wrote:I have to saz that the RUN improving its navy quite effectivly.

They are more cost effective now than the CCCP has been ever.

Now they are better than the US in ship design and building.

Cost effective? Sure, same as Serbian river flotilla is far more cost effective than US Navy.

"Better than the US in ship design and building"...

Now you are trolling us abit here.


-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/t5750-russian-navy-status-news-3

OminousSpudd wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:But in a 1 vs 1 battle, Buyan or more probably Karakurt for this scenario can win if it's correctly commanded.

You see that's not how the world works.

There's 63 ABs out there, 5 Buyan-M and 0 Karakurts in existence, right now.

Harsh numbers my friend. Even with no air cover those little corvettes will be eaten for lunch just by the organic Seahawks carried from FIIA onwards.

Isos wrote:SM-6 can be jammed, in my opinion, easily by the big jammers of a ship. I've read somewhere that a F-111 elec warefar jammed F-22s equipement (radar and radar receivers), so the SM-6 is not that a problem.

Anything can be jammed eventually, but right now this missile is 100% unknown quantity to the Russians. It is among the most modern gucci kit the USN is receiving and its performance is just unparalleled and highly classified.

Since you seem to base most of your assumptions on Mars... You actually do not know if the Russians have an idea about the SM-6, you do not know whether they have a counter, and you do not know how effective the SM-6 is, and you do not know that it is unparalleled (you use these buzzwords frequently, that's bias, btw). This is reality, lets get a bit grounded eh? I know you're on an anti-bias crusade, and you're a pessimist, so rather unreliable, but you could at least try to use lateral thinking.

If we are to go from Patriot (including PAC-3) or THAAD, I would not at all be so sure. The US has only ever demonstrated mediocre ability at intercepting 60s-70s era BMs, let alone AShMs, modern BMs. This is a known fact, demonstrated frequently in the field by users of such systems, now we could take these prior experiences and project them onto recent products, or we could just take manufacturer's statements at face value (of course in doing that, you have to accept things like that the F-35 is amazing, and that the F-22 has an RCS of 0.000000000000000001m2, not really navigable territory in my book, although, your defense of projects such as the DDG1000 etc. suggest that you do). Meanwhile, Russia can intercept an Onyx fired from an unknown location (to the interceptors) and successfully wipe it out using joint sensor communication with ground based radars and 1990s MiG-31BMs. Just because the US churns out equipment around the clock does not mean they are superior, especially if much of their technology falls on deep-rooted issues that a top-heavy and corrupt MiC can not deal with.

Actually Russians are the ones always using that legendary "нет аналога в мире" phase. Same words were used to describe dozens of later miserably failed projects. So i wouldnt judge there so quickly.

Its highly doubtful Russians have any deeper knowledge on SM-6, i agree on that one... i base that asumption on fact that certain figures on certain military forums are working in Ru MOD and use forums to gather interesting data on certain items. There is one of them being very active member on Keypublishing for an example.

Also you are doing same you accuse him of doing. Russians can do this or that... sure, with what % of repetitive success? We shot down F-16 in 1999. we couldnt repeat it. They jammed the shit out of us we couldnt listen to local radio.

Mindstorm wrote:" What  WILL BE  the on-board weapon potential of Arleigh Burke destroyer for 1)  anti-ship 2) anti-air/anti missile 3) ground attack 4) anti-submarine and  5) anti-torpedo roles when and if LRASM and NGLAW will be successfully completed ? "

You can respond at this question adding those two missiles for mission 1) and 2) among Mk-41 weapon selection in the up-reported response.

In short: up to 96* LRASM

It is always 16 AShM

Except when carrying a mix of land-attack or anti-sub missiles -> 'up to'.

OminousSpudd wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:But in a 1 vs 1 battle, Buyan or more probably Karakurt for this scenario can win if it's correctly commanded.

You see that's not how the world works.

There's 63 ABs out there, 5 Buyan-M and 0 Karakurts in existence, right now.

Harsh numbers my friend. Even with no air cover those little corvettes will be eaten for lunch just by the organic Seahawks carried from FIIA onwards.

Isos wrote:SM-6 can be jammed, in my opinion, easily by the big jammers of a ship. I've read somewhere that a F-111 elec warefar jammed F-22s equipement (radar and radar receivers), so the SM-6 is not that a problem.

Anything can be jammed eventually, but right now this missile is 100% unknown quantity to the Russians. It is among the most modern gucci kit the USN is receiving and its performance is just unparalleled and highly classified.

Since you seem to base most of your assumptions on Mars... You actually do not know if the Russians have an idea about the SM-6, you do not know whether they have a counter, and you do not know how effective the SM-6 is, and you do not know that it is unparalleled (you use these buzzwords frequently, that's bias, btw). This is reality, lets get a bit grounded eh? I know you're on an anti-bias crusade, and you're a pessimist, so rather unreliable, but you could at least try to use lateral thinking.

If we are to go from Patriot (including PAC-3) or THAAD, I would not at all be so sure. The US has only ever demonstrated mediocre ability at intercepting 60s-70s era BMs, let alone AShMs, modern BMs. This is a known fact, demonstrated frequently in the field by users of such systems, now we could take these prior experiences and project them onto recent products, or we could just take manufacturer's statements at face value (of course in doing that, you have to accept things like that the F-35 is amazing, and that the F-22 has an RCS of 0.000000000000000001m2, not really navigable territory in my book, although, your defense of projects such as the DDG1000 etc. suggest that you do). Meanwhile, Russia can intercept an Onyx fired from an unknown location (to the interceptors) and successfully wipe it out using joint sensor communication with ground based radars and 1990s MiG-31BMs. Just because the US churns out equipment around the clock does not mean they are superior, especially if much of their technology falls on deep-rooted issues that a top-heavy and corrupt MiC can not deal with.

Militarov wrote:Actually Russians are the ones always using that legendary "нет аналога в мире" phase. Same words were used to describe dozens of later miserably failed projects. So i wouldnt judge there so quickly.

What? Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the noise of an American staffer talking about full-spectrum dominance. What you say maybe true on a person-to-person basis, and more applicable during the Soviet times, but today? I do not see it anywhere to the same extent as coming from the West. Hell, saying it is the best is part & parcel of selling the damn things now... That's on an official level, and not just for the export market, but to their own country. Show me the same happening from the Ru side. Anyway, I do not recall saying Russian projects never fail. Lets stay on topic shall we?

Militarov wrote:Its highly doubtful Russians have any deeper knowledge on SM-6, i agree on that one... i base that asumption on fact that certain figures on certain military forums are working in Ru MOD and use forums to gather interesting data on certain items. There is one of them being very active member on Keypublishing for an example.

You wouldn't know. The Americans wouldn't know. Welcome to being an observer from afar. Logically, being a "new" system, the SM-6 should be unknown, yes, but how often has that been the case throughout history?

This obsessive navel gazing, like we influence what happens in the field, I see it here quite a bit. Members of Ru MoD browsing forums for information to use as official data? And that's what you would base their intel level on a weapons system off of? Come off it. Intel gathering is far more sophisticated than simply jumping on forums and reading about the latest hardware, the point is to be ahead of the curve, not read about it in the local paper over a morning coffee.  We're not important, and the info discussed is only what we can see provided by official releases, which would have been read ten times over by proper staff already. To think that anything said here makes any difference at all, other than to the average joe, is incredibly detached from reality. If that was the case, I'd be seriously concerned about people posting deployment locations and numbers as we have in some of the threads here, and ex-service members would be being hauled up left right and center for leaking classified information.

Any useful bit of information could be useless information, imagine how simple it would be to spread disinformation if everyone was browsing everyone else's forum so as to devise the next strategy, weapon, battle.  

Militarov wrote:Also you are doing same you accuse him of doing. Russians can do this or that... sure, with what % of repetitive success? We shot down F-16 in 1999. we couldnt repeat it. They jammed the shit out of us we couldnt listen to local radio.

That's the point though, isn't it? I can say that Russia can destroy supersonic missiles and that they are unparalleled because some tests say they are... Or you could say the SM-6 is unparalleled because a bunch of tests say it is.

... Or we could, idk, use a little bit of lateral thinking and compare history.

LockMart CGI gimmicks aside, this is the LRASM threat

Mindstorm wrote:here i recall that from an analysis of the metrics of foreign and domestic samples by part of a leading domestic Institute was comupted that closing speed and terminal G-pull limitis of a sea skimming missile accounted for the variation of probability of interception by part of various classes of ship-borne AD systems from six to eight times of the aggregate of all other features present on those AShM combined

Can you please share those findings? Something doesn't look right here. After terminal lock large G manoeuvres are impossible.

So I suspect what you or rather the findings that you are referring to are suggesting is that terminal lock is made at the very last second. This again sounds difficult to achieve. Hence, it will be worthwhile if you can post those findings here.

OminousSpudd wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:But in a 1 vs 1 battle, Buyan or more probably Karakurt for this scenario can win if it's correctly commanded.

You see that's not how the world works.

There's 63 ABs out there, 5 Buyan-M and 0 Karakurts in existence, right now.

Harsh numbers my friend. Even with no air cover those little corvettes will be eaten for lunch just by the organic Seahawks carried from FIIA onwards.

Isos wrote:SM-6 can be jammed, in my opinion, easily by the big jammers of a ship. I've read somewhere that a F-111 elec warefar jammed F-22s equipement (radar and radar receivers), so the SM-6 is not that a problem.

Anything can be jammed eventually, but right now this missile is 100% unknown quantity to the Russians. It is among the most modern gucci kit the USN is receiving and its performance is just unparalleled and highly classified.

Since you seem to base most of your assumptions on Mars... You actually do not know if the Russians have an idea about the SM-6, you do not know whether they have a counter, and you do not know how effective the SM-6 is, and you do not know that it is unparalleled (you use these buzzwords frequently, that's bias, btw). This is reality, lets get a bit grounded eh? I know you're on an anti-bias crusade, and you're a pessimist, so rather unreliable, but you could at least try to use lateral thinking.

If we are to go from Patriot (including PAC-3) or THAAD, I would not at all be so sure. The US has only ever demonstrated mediocre ability at intercepting 60s-70s era BMs, let alone AShMs, modern BMs. This is a known fact, demonstrated frequently in the field by users of such systems, now we could take these prior experiences and project them onto recent products, or we could just take manufacturer's statements at face value (of course in doing that, you have to accept things like that the F-35 is amazing, and that the F-22 has an RCS of 0.000000000000000001m2, not really navigable territory in my book, although, your defense of projects such as the DDG1000 etc. suggest that you do). Meanwhile, Russia can intercept an Onyx fired from an unknown location (to the interceptors) and successfully wipe it out using joint sensor communication with ground based radars and 1990s MiG-31BMs. Just because the US churns out equipment around the clock does not mean they are superior, especially if much of their technology falls on deep-rooted issues that a top-heavy and corrupt MiC can not deal with.

Militarov wrote:Actually Russians are the ones always using that legendary "нет аналога в мире" phase. Same words were used to describe dozens of later miserably failed projects. So i wouldnt judge there so quickly.

What? Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the noise of an American staffer talking about full-spectrum dominance. What you say maybe true on a person-to-person basis, and more applicable during the Soviet times, but today? I do not see it anywhere to the same extent as coming from the West. Hell, saying it is the best is part & parcel of selling the damn things now... That's on an official level, and not just for the export market, but to their own country. Show me the same happening from the Ru side. Anyway, I do not recall saying Russian projects never fail. Lets stay on topic shall we?

Militarov wrote:Its highly doubtful Russians have any deeper knowledge on SM-6, i agree on that one... i base that asumption on fact that certain figures on certain military forums are working in Ru MOD and use forums to gather interesting data on certain items. There is one of them being very active member on Keypublishing for an example.

You wouldn't know. The Americans wouldn't know. Welcome to being an observer from afar. Logically, being a "new" system, the SM-6 should be unknown, yes, but how often has that been the case throughout history?

This obsessive navel gazing, like we influence what happens in the field, I see it here quite a bit. Members of Ru MoD browsing forums for information to use as official data? And that's what you would base their intel level on a weapons system off of? Come off it. Intel gathering is far more sophisticated than simply jumping on forums and reading about the latest hardware, the point is to be ahead of the curve, not read about it in the local paper over a morning coffee.  We're not important, and the info discussed is only what we can see provided by official releases, which would have been read ten times over by proper staff already. To think that anything said here makes any difference at all, other than to the average joe, is incredibly detached from reality. If that was the case, I'd be seriously concerned about people posting deployment locations and numbers as we have in some of the threads here, and ex-service members would be being hauled up left right and center for leaking classified information.

Any useful bit of information could be useless information, imagine how simple it would be to spread disinformation if everyone was browsing everyone else's forum so as to devise the next strategy, weapon, battle.  

Militarov wrote:Also you are doing same you accuse him of doing. Russians can do this or that... sure, with what % of repetitive success? We shot down F-16 in 1999. we couldnt repeat it. They jammed the shit out of us we couldnt listen to local radio.

That's the point though, isn't it? I can say that Russia can destroy supersonic missiles and that they are unparalleled because some tests say they are... Or you could say the SM-6 is unparalleled because a bunch of tests say it is.

... Or we could, idk, use a little bit of lateral thinking and compare history.

Actually yes, i have seen more than one Russian military manuals that are 100% made of data taken from Wikipedia, and no i am not joking. M1A1 Abrams manual i saw made by RuMOD was 100/100 translated Wikipedia article about it.

So ye, there is no really Russian James Bond hanging on elastic cables in some hangar in Area 51 spying on SM-6.

However they are not interested in tell-told things on the forums, they are interested in scans of the manuals, pictures, graphs... alot of which sooner or later appears on forums. That is giving less results, but costs almost nothing in terms of obtaining.

You are aware that is how we in Serbia knew when US aircraft were taking off the Aviano? Via one italian aircraft spotter forum. Real life is not James Bond shit... get used to it.

hoom wrote:In short: up to 96* LRASM Razz

In short "up to 96".....obviously if you want to let your enemy erase ,in a matter of few minutes, an entire Arleigh Burke destroyer formation with no more than 2-3 missiles for ship - practically the typical opening salvo used to test opponent's fleet defense by part of a single opponent combatant - ship or submarine - of an enemy proficient Navy -

I repeat: 96 VLS is effectively the entire potential of an Arleigh Burke for any task except for anti-submarine role (where it has a complement of 6 light Mk 46/54 torpedo)

hoom wrote:Except when carrying a mix of land-attack or anti-sub missiles -> 'up to'.

Except when your AshM missiles (to the contrary of today operative over ocean counterparts - with the except of a failed and retired attempt -) have all the capability to strike ground targets too from day one.....


About antisubmarine role it is clear that it will not be the mission committed to пр.22350 (for question related to on-board sensor suit); obviously in a mixed group with other specialized ASW units a пр.22350 could execute the stand-off engagements of the detected enemy submarines, in this instance its 16 AshM missile would be replaced by 91РТ - with effective engagement range and Pk several times greater than AB available VLA.


Simply a similar occurence would be too rare to assert that for a place in the пр.22350's VLS "fight" also 91РТ.