How about you do me a favour and get back onto the subject of the thread. Like Mushroon is trying to do.
Three Arleigh Burke Flight III would cost the same and do much better job than this.. They are the most powerful and advanced multi-role fighting platforms ever put on sea ...96 Standard3 missiles awesome ...
Some knucklehead in the Dept. of the Navy probably thinks the Chinese would never shoot at a fishing boat. LMFAO.
What happens if thew Burke comes up against a Slava class cruiser that fires a eight round salvo of SN-A-6 supersonic anti ship missiles each having a 2,000 lb warhead ? The Arleigh Burke's are A/A ships which are nothing more than oversize escorts. Even the U.S. Navy's new LRASM anti ship cruise missile is still subsonic and has completed the R&D phase and is now going through the testing phase. LRASM Test Shot -> https://news.usni.org/2016/09/02/vi...230369141&mc_cid=381653f057&mc_eid=2aedd16e3c
The Aegis system is by far the most effective air defence weapon system on the planet. A Flight IIA class Burke could defeat anything a single Russian missile cruiser could toss at her.
The Burke shoots down the incoming missiles, uses its dual purpose radars to jam the Slava's radars, and fires a spread of Harpoons back. And it still has its deck gun if the Harpoons aren't enough. A Slava isn't going to take well to 122mm GPS guided rounds slamming into its conning tower.
Russian naval tactics are firing salvos of anti ship missiles that are super sonic. American warships aren't capale firing salvos of missiles, only launching one missile at a time. The U.S. Navy has neglected surface warfare for decades while the Soviets/Russia haven't. The Harpoon is sub sonic and easily can be shot down. The 122 mm ? Are you referring to the Burke's 5"/54 pop gun ?
The Burke can most defitely fire more than one SM-3 at a time. And would kill the entire salvo launched by the Slava. The Harpoon can only be shot down it can be hit by the Slava's defenses, which would be pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) hard to do when all its radars are being jammed by the AEGIS system on the Burke. And yes, that "popgun" is more than enough to slag everything above the waterline on a Slava, especially its radar, comms systems, and conning tower. What's the point in thick armor when you are blind, disarmed, and brain dead?
You must have missed this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/warfare-military/466090-uss-thach-ffg-43-attacked-sunk-pacific.html The Oliver Perry class frigate was the low end when it came to American warships. Here's what it took to sink the target ship USS Thach (FFG-43)
Why does sinking it matter when a single Harpoon can set it alight and totally mission kill it? BTW, the Thach wasn't full of fuel, nor did it have a full combat load of highly explosive ordinance on board.
Did you watch the video and watched what effect the three Harpoons had on the frigate ? The Harpoon is sub sonic (530 MPH) and only has a 488 lb. warhead. The Russian anti ship SS-N-12 skims just above the water at Mach 2.5 and has a semi armor piercing 2.000 lb. warhead.
It's doesn't matter if it fails to sink it on the first shot. The first shot will wreck radars and other antennas, start fires, kill crew and stun or hurt others who aren't killed, it'll disable weapons and if the ship is carry ordinance (which to reiterate, the Thach WASN'T), it can cause that ordinance to go up in sympathetic explosions. Best case scenario for the Slava, it's a mission kill and the Slava is limping home and hoping more missiles aren't headed its way. Worst case scenario, the Harpoon hits as they are reloading their own launchers and sets off one of those 2,000 pound warheads right against the hull. How well do you think a Slava can survive catastrophic detonation of its magazine?
So your advocating bringing back the Iowa class battleships that can't be sunk unless you break it's keel ? It's interesting that the Slava class cruiser does have a couple of cranes which "Janes" thinks it can reload SS-N-12's while at sea. You may remember back in 2013 with Obama's "red line in the sand" when Obama got into a stare down with Putin and Obama blinked. Obama ordered the Stennis CSG from the 5th Fleet AOR to the 6th Fleet AOR. While the Stennis CSG was in the Red Sea nearing the Suez Canal Putin moved a Slava class cruiser into the Mediterranean Sea. The Stennis CSG refused to transit the Suez Canal and enter the 6th Fleet AOR (Mediterranean Sea) with that Slava class carrier in the Med. You see the Slava class cruiser and it's SS-N-12 anti ship missiles are designed for only one mission, sinking American super carriers from 300 miles away. The Slava doesn't operate alone, it has it's destroyers and frigates escorts and an usually an attack submarine all armed with anti ship missiles. Here's how Russian surface warfare doctrine is believed to be. A Slava would launch 1/2 of it's SS-N-12 missiles ( 8 ) and all of the escorts would also launch a salvo of anti ship missiles. All of the missiles would come on target with in one second of each other at the same time. You are looking at maybe 24 to 36 missiles traveling at Mach 2.5 skimming just above the water all hitting their targets at the same time. Kinda like how ground artillery and naval gunfire support conducts a "Time On Target" ( TOT ) fire mission. Very effective, the U.S Army perfected the TOT fire mission during WW ll. For decades it was just scuttlebutt that Soviet/Russian warships were able to launch multi missile salvos. But it was confirmed last year when Russian warships launched multi missile salvos against targets in Syria raising eye brows of NATO's navies. How fast can a Harpoon or Standard missile can be fired ? I forget the answer maybe some else remembers or knows. Is it every 5 seconds or 10 seconds ???
All this "Mine is bigger than yours" comparison is silly....neither side will ever get the opportunity to fire a second salvo if this becomes a reality as the ship firing will be destroyed before it can do so. Between sub-surface and airborne retaliation any ship will be an easy target and sunk. There is also the fact that Russia does not have a good history of keeping their ships even running let alone in tip top shape.
Russian technology is decades behind the West European ( French, German , British ) level, let alone the US ..Remember, they couldn't even rescue the crew of Kursk from 110 m !!!! any world class free diver could go down there easily.. and when Putin decided to swallow his stupid pride and asked US/UK for help, it was too late.. He deliberately murdered his own people.. Russian technology is (*)(*)(*)(*),in each and every field ..
I often wonder how much American bragging about how good their hardware is above everyone else's is pure propaganda for the gullible. After all, you only read such stuff somewhere or other, you never see it in action. I mean they brag so much they don't know they're doing it! Go9d how I hate braggarts and bullies!
Uh...you do realize everything you are referring to as bragging her is actually fact based rebuttal to the initial critique correct? Also, as far as "Seeing" the U.S. naval fleet....you folks are complaining about a couple little (in comparison) ships slightly near your territorial waters and aggressively tempting fate while you beat your chests like a freakin' impotent Gorilla. Just be glad we are not easily tempted or you would probably be in a losing war.
I was mainly referring to the claim duplex made that your warships are undetectable by radar, not that your navy doesn't exist. I don't know what the rest of your post means other than the implied threat of war in the last para.
BuII(*)(*)(*)(*)!!!!.....reread what you posted and then what you just spewed. ! And...stating opinion is NOT warmongering. It seems you guys get twisted panties if anyone so much as defends themselves...Freakin' grow a set.
It was every three second back before the Navy used VLS launchers. Its faster now. A carrier group will have to contend with 24 to 36 missiles being shot at them, sure. They'll have close to 700 missiles between the AEGIS ships and the RAM's, and that doesn't even get into CIWS. The Russian ships get one salvo. Then they get broad spectrum jamming and the return salvo of missile from the US ships and aircraft of the carrier annihilate them. And no, I'm not advocating a return of the expensive, cumbersome, and pointless in modern war Iowa's. I am rightfully pointing out that just because you don't sink a ship, that doesn't mean you don't mission kill it. It would be like saying "A T-72 can't penetrate the armor on a M1A2 Abrams", that's true, but if a T-72 hits the Abrams on the turret, wrecks its sighting systems and deforms the barrel of the gun just enough that it is unsafe to fire, that Abrams is just as useless as it would have been if it had been killed outright.
Whats always so amusing is that people think paper specs and peacetime testing results translates directly into a real world. They don't. That missile that has a 98% Pk in testing and simulations won't be anywhere close to that in a real war. All those assumptions as to what the enemy is going to do are never perfect, not even close. All the plans and expectations go out the window when the war starts and the bad guys get a vote. But you are correct that you don't have to sink a ship or destroy a tank etc to make it ineffective. You don't even have to hit it, if you can fool the enemy into putting it in the wrong place, its out of the fight.
The old surface warfare doctrine of using anti ship cruise missiles was to engage the enemy ships from 150 out to 300 miles away. That gives the enemy if 300 miles away about a ten minutes warning if you are dealing with Mach 2.5 incoming missiles. If it's American subsonic incoming missiles you get maybe a twenty minute heads up. That's only if there's an AWAC's in the air. New surface warfare doctrine now being possibly used by both the U.S. Navy and Russian navy ( per USNI "Proceedings" ). Get up close just outside of the enemy's radar range and launch your missiles. Engaging the enemy from 100 to 50 miles away. At Mach 2.5 the missiles would be detected and you have 30 to 45 seconds to react. A Russian SS-N-12 is traveling 3 miles every 6 seconds. Sea skimming cruise missiles are traveling below the air search radar, it will be the ship's surface search radar that would detect the incoming missiles, unless you have an AWAC's in the air. Only a Carrier Strike Group would have an E-2 AWAC. The higher the surface search radar is, the more range it has. Excerpt:
What I posted is perfectly consistent with what I just spewed. Again I don't understand what you mean. Never mind, just forget it. I've always noticed there's some kind of weird disconnect between us, but it happens in this medium, like it does in real life.
