Are these things useless in a war against Russia or China?
No.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30588805
>>30588805
-_-
>>30588805
I've never even seen a plane, owned
When american CIW'S and other defenses can't protect from a mach 7 anti ship missile, yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=294by85-JqU
>>30592357
SM-6s can shoot down the brahmos II and that's with the brahmos' CLAIMED capabilities
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30592357
This is a P-800 missile, it's maximum speed is only mach 2-2.6 (depending on altitude).
Carrier is still fucked, though.
>>30587687
your mom swims after troop ships
>>30592357
Eh. At that speed it is effectively an AP shell. It'll punch through the carriers but do little damage. Not that the carrier's aircraft hadn't picked off the launchers first.
>>30588805
thank you based BUK
>>30593621
Russia has no platforms that could even theoretically get a P-800 into range of a carrier group on war footing.
So there's that.
I feel like we're about to get very 4GW in this thread...
>>30592357
I bet you rub one out to the carrier scene in the sum of all fears
>>30590806
Cringe
>>30592357
>>30593714
>What the fuck is Project 885?
>What the fuck is Project 949AM upgrade?
That is assuming we're only talking P-800 which is by far not the main missile to fuck a CSG up.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
IN THIS THREAD
PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT CARRIER OR NAVAL WARFARE.
YOU BASE YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT OFF KNOWLEDGE THAT IS UNCLASSIFIED, RENDERING YOU FUCKING USELESS.
>>30594042
Yeah this has always made me a little skeptical of the things posted here. Not to say the declassified bits aren't impressive on all three sides, but the likelihood that anyone here has the full picture is very slim.
>>30594042
Carriers are pretty important in today's geo-strategic environment. Why else would Russia and China be scrambling to build carrier killing weapons?
>>30593911
Here it is again
The autistic splerg splerging out over a truthful fact with his over inflated ego, too blind to actually see the truth.
Fuck /k/'s been going down the drain since 14.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30592357
SM-3 goes mach 10.2
>>30593621
>This is a P-800 missile, it's maximum speed is only mach 2-2.6
Sounds like an easy target for SM-6/SM-3.
>>30594094
No, he spergs out, but he is correct.
The USN has spent decades perfecting both protecting the carrier (both surface and subsurface) and intercepting missiles.
>>30587687
We will find out soon enough when china throws the mother of all fits from the Hague ruling.
>>30594133
its today, right?
Good. Fuck china. I hope they give the US a reason to preying mantis their ass.
>>30594111
But this wont make carriers unsinkable.
>>30594196
Nothing is unsinkable.
However, the USN is well aware of the threats the CBG faces, and has prepared well for it.
>>30593855
I don't know about that guy, but i certainly do.
>>30587687
Sure! Just spam ALL your missiles at it and those things will go down fast! Don't even bother with any other weapons research or anything! It doesn't matter how many defenses they have or how poorly you protect your launchers, remember: missiles! Especially old ones, that's SUPER important so they don't get jammed or something.
>>30592386
>SM-6 is claimed to shoot down the brahmos II claimed capabilities.
Fixed that for you.
>>30587696
FPBP
>>30594249
MAXIMUM ENGRISH
>>30594111
US spend less time making anti missile weapons than the russians, they also spend less time making missiles than the russians.
When Phalanx CIWS was introduced in 1980 it was inferior in every way to the older AK630 CIWS.
US ships still carry very little anti missile weapons compared to russian fleets, and the missile threats the US face is much more dangerous than what the Russian fleets face.
>>30594253
>maximum deflection
>>30594107
>>30594110
SM-3 is an anti-ballistic missile. It is by no means suited for sea-skimming intercept.
>>30594269
>literally nothing in this post is true
China is vulnerable due geography (wealthy areas concentrated around the coastline). Russia less so for the opposite reason (few to none warm water ports).
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30594288
>This post is a lie
>>30594278
Your rape of the English language makes rebuttal impossible. Talk to your superior officer about syntax and try again.
>>30594288
Phalanx has less energy, less range, fires slower, and has less ammunition in storage.
US has no supersonic anti ship missile
Russia has had that since the 1960s i believe.
I am sorry that you can't comprehend US is around 50 years behind on anti ship missile technology.
>>30594280
SM-6.
And this picture is before THIS (and new Block of SM-3`s) :
''On 24 October 2014, Raytheon announced that two SM-6 missiles intercepted anti-ship and cruise missile targets during "engage on remote" scenarios. A low-altitude, short-range supersonic GQM-163A and a low-altitude, medium-range subsonic BQM-74E were shot down by SM-6s fired from a guided-missile cruiser using targeting information provided by a guided-missile destroyer. Advanced warning and cueing from other ships allows the missile's over-the-horizon capability to be more greatly utilized so a single ship is able defend a larger area''
http://news.usni.org/2015/01/26/raytheon-new-standard-missile-6-approved-older-navy-combat-systems
''The SM-6 offers extended range over previous SM-2 series missiles, primarily being able to intercept very high altitude or sea-skimming anti-ship missiles; the missile is also slated to perform terminal phase ballistic missile defense. It can discriminate targets using its dual-mode seeker, with the semi-active seeker relying on a ship-based illuminator to highlight the target, and the active seeker having the missile itself send out an electromagnetic signal; the active seeker has the ability to detect a land-based cruise missile amid ground features, even from behind a mountain. The multi-mission SM-6 is engineered with the aerodynamics of an SM-2, the propulsion booster stack of the SM-3, and the front end configuration of the AMRAAM''
USN carriers is the safest place to be of all Navy`s in the world.
>>30594347
>US has no supersonic anti ship missile
False, SM-6 was given anti-ship capabilities last year.
With a simple software patch, US obtained 240–460 km, Mach 3.5 supersonic anti-ship missile.
>>30594333
No SM-6 has ever shot down a brahmos II. Therefor what you said about the SM-6 is a baseless claim, as there is no evidence for the proficiency of the SM-6.
People with a minimal intelligence is able to read incomplete sentences and misspelled words and still figure out what they mean, that you can't might be a sign that you have some kind of mental issue.
>>30594358
But it needs to be HUGE to be good! At least that's what the Slavs claim.
>>30588805
thankyou based buk
>>30593625
The troop ships requested your father
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30594358
>>30594366
>Tries to sound like he knows what he is talking about
>can't tell the difference between an anti ship missile and an anti aircraft missile.
>>30588805
thank you based buk
>>30594288
I want to modernize the battleship.
>>30594365
>No Brahmos has ever sunk a US carrier. Therefore what you said about the Brahmos is a baseless claim, as there is no evidence for the proficiency of the Brahmos
Still had to unrape the Queen's English.
>>30594392
>doesn't understand anti-everything missiles
>>30594365
>that you can't might be a sign that you have some kind of mental issue.
>>30594402
You don't need to shit post just because your future pension is evaporating faster than the purchasing power of your currency.
>>30594392
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-sink-battleships-us-navys-anti-ship-sm-6-missile-15436
>>30594269
>US spend less time making anti missile weapons than the russians,
This is 100% false. The SM missile series came about in 1967, and the Ageis combat system, a naval dedicated anti missile system (the first of its kind) came about in 1973.
>When Phalanx CIWS was introduced in 1980 it was inferior in every way to the older AK630 CIWS
Thats because the US had the standard missile series and aegis by that time. The CIWS was not meant to be a primary anti missle system, it was meant to be a last ditch effort against all threats.
To that end, it was meant to be lightweight and small, so it would not get in the way of other systems.
>US ships still carry very little anti missile weapons compared to russian fleets
This is asinine, when you 1) compare fleet sizes, and 2) compare capabilities of the ships in question.
>B....BUT MUH KIROV CLASS
Only 4 was made.
>>30594425
>>30594415
I don't think anyone in the developed world will have pensions with the current demographics.
>>30588805
thank you based buk
>>30594445
>It's okay to have bad systems because i can name a brand of another system which i am now going to pretend is so good everything else doesn't matter.
yeah yeah
>>30594348
That picture is incorrect, Kirov has SA-N-20. Also, why do American SAM's speeds suck so much ass?
why do people forget that subs exist?
>muh missiles
>>30594601
Why do people forged missile subs exist?
>Muh carriers
>>30594601
Subs are nice, they are cute and cuddley.
>>30594531
The CWIS is not bad, its just a smaller 20mm system because the USN decided that it was the least consequential system in the engagement chain.
For example, the CWIS weighs 7,000 pounds less WITH RADAR, than the 630 system which does not have an integrated radar, and relys on offboard sensors.
Which again shows the CWIS's advantage, it is completely autonomous. The AK-630 needs off board radar to work, the CWIS does not.
>>30587687
Yes we don't need models anymore now that we have 3D rendering.
>>30594609
i meant more that you can literally sneak up on fools sleepin in a sub and get your elite kiddies to swim out of the torpedo hatch and then go and take over a carrier
been done before because we all know those navy boys don't know how to fight
>>30594415
>pension
Now who's deflecting?
>current year
>depending on the government
>not having a 401k and gold
>>30594568
Thats also not true, the Kirov has solely SA-N-6 or a mix between the aforementioned and SA-N-20 depending on the ship (well, depending on all two of them)...S-300 is an acceptable shorthand term imo.
>Also, why do American SAM's speeds suck so much ass?
SM-3 goes mach 10. SM-6 goes mach 3.5, seems pretty reasonable.
>>30594613
It's CIWS not CWIS.
But i get what you're saying, the AK630M-2's weight has a RADAR included aswell, the gun system itself including ammo is only slightly over 5 tons, the radar is between 4 and 6 tonnes depending on what model it is.
>>30594671
>the gun system itself including ammo is only slightly over 5 tons
The gun and radar system of the Phalanx is just over 6 tons, and has far less footprint.
>>30594392
>ad hom instead of rebuttal
>>30594637
>gold
I find that silver tends to be more stable.
>>30594613
First, it's CIWS. Second, it's called Phalanx. Third, for the love of god, where do you get this bullshit from?
>Weight: (Block 1B): 13,600 pounds (6,120 kg).
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=487&ct=2
>Weight of gun mount (less ammunition allowance), kg 1800
>Ammunition allowance (in magazine), cartridges 2000
>Extra ammunition allowance in spare feed bin, cartridges 1000
http://www.tulamash.ru/catalog/26
>Weight of cartridge, kg 0,83
http://www.tulamash.ru/catalog/28
This gives a total weight of 4290kg for a fully loaded AK-630M.
>and relys on offboard sensors
That are usually positioned higher on a mast and therefore provide better targeting.
>>30594642
>Thats also not true
Yes it is. The only currently operational Kirov has both SA-N-6 and SA-N-20.
>SM-3
Is and anti-ballistic missile.
>SM-6 goes mach 3.5, seems pretty reasonable.
Not when you compare it to 48N6 for the aforementioned SA-N-20 introduced 26 years ago.
>>30594365
Oh fuck it's that "therefor" guy again.
Yes, 'therefor' is a word.
No, it doesn't mean 'therefore'.
>Unless this is some 4chan meme and I am getting expertly trolled?
>>30594758
>Third, for the love of god, where do you get this bullshit from?
The radar weight is included.
>That are usually positioned higher on a mast and therefore provide better targeting.
It does not matter if the guns range is so short (for both systems)
It also means if the mast gets hit, bye bye CWIS data.
>>30594821
What are characteristics of the Phalanx radar?
>>30594758
>Yes it is.
No, its not. The statement was Kirov has SA-N-20, when it has both the SA-N-6 and the SA-N-20 of the S-300 system.
>Is and anti-ballistic missile.
So is the SA-N-20.
>Not when you compare it to 48N6 for the aforementioned SA-N-20 introduced 26 years ago.
For low altitude work? Nothing is going faster than mach 3 near sea level, so the speed is essentially wasted.
The SM-6 also has twice to four times the max range as the SA-N-20.
>>30594833
Unknown, but again its a CIWS, so it does not have to be super powerful.
>>30594860
Yes it is. It has SA-N-20. The picture does not show it.
>So is the SA-N-20.
No, it is not. It is a SAM with limited anti-ballistic capability, while SM-3 is a dedicated high-altitude anti-ballistic missile.
>Nothing is going faster than mach 3 near sea level
Except for missiles. But the point is not sea level, the point is that higher speed allows a missile to intercept an aircraft faster with higher success probability.
>>30587687
This bullshit again.
>>30594976
>Except for missiles.
Brahmos goes mach 3, nothing else is currently faster.
>, the point is that higher speed allows a missile to intercept an aircraft faster
Yes.
> higher success probability.
No.
To show you the difference, the S-300FM missile goes 150 km. It will take the missile 2 minutes to get there. The SM-6, will take a grand total of 90 seconds more to get there...then be able to fly 2 to 4 times farther.
Keep in mind you are also launching far before before the vampire reaches the missiles max range.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
Friendly reminder that during the gulf war Exocets took out a destroyer, and French ASM is literally decades behind Russia.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30595067
Friendly reminder that the ship was not a destroyer, it was a frigate. It also took 2 hits and did not sink.
>>30595083
Yeah now compare the warheads on Exocets to Vampirs and such.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30594976
>Except for missiles
Maybe ballistic missiles go faster than mach 3. There is no cruise missile today that goes faster than mach 3 especially not at sea level with considerable drag.
>>30595096
Anon, i am well aware of the differences between missiles.
You seem to have trouble with the difference between destroyer and frigates.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30595067
So what? It sank the HMS Sheffield, which has a grand total of
>2 × Sea Dart surface-to-air missile launcher
Wow. Basically shooting fish in a barrel.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30594425
Did anyone read this?
Basically this is saying "we had no remotely potent anti ship missile so now we made this one which is good."
It also says "They could just focus on our carriers which is bad"
From that article we can conclude that until recently they had dog shit for missiles, and focusing down a carrier was the completely expected result which would render a fleet toothless.
And the SM-6, which is suppose to be the saving grace of the US navy, has only a bit more than 200 produced, hardly enough to even come close to replacing the older weapons.
>>30595223
The article does ignore the SM-2 block IIIB, which has the same capability at less range, which is the only SM-2 variant the USN fields and has been around since forever.
>the only problem is that its trajectory is semi ballistic, while the SM-6 can be programed to do whatever you want.
Realistically, the US planed and does plan to use Air launched harpoons, which is plenty good, and by god they have a gorillion of them.
For near future, the LRASM is going on line, which is god tier.
>>30595150
We're also forgetting that HMS Sheffield had its radar disabled at the time.
>>30594056
>but the likelihood that anyone here has the full picture is very slim.
There are active and former SUW USNfags that browse and post here. I've met three at regional meets/nuggetfest. Their unconcern about this question tells me everything I need to know.
The simple fact of the matter is Russia's and China's kill chains are far too long. There are far too many tactical options for the CSG/ESG/SAG to disguise and spoof their location for a terminal weapons track, plus the fact that the most effective anti-missile systems in the CSG are the ones no one talks about: the massive and very secret EW capabilities of Ticos and Burkes. As a bubblehead, I don't know much about these. In fact, most folks that live and work on Ticos and Burkes don't even know much about this capability set. But it's there, and it's very, very mean.
All this before we even begin discussing SM-6/SM-2ER/ESSM/Sea-RAM/etc.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30595223
>Basically this is saying "we had no remotely potent anti ship missile so now we made this one which is good."
That's a whole lot of projecting you've got going there.
>>30594347
>US has no supersonic anti ship missile
>Russia has had that since the 1960s i believe.
>2016
>still falling for the SUPERSONIC BEST EVERYTHING ELSE IS WORSE meme
lel
http://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison
The simple fact is that supersonic missiles are inferior to subsonic in every way except for the final leg of the mission. If you still want to fall for the meme that supersonic is the best, then it should tell you everything about how shit tier the Soviet Navy was that NO ONE bothered to build supersonic AShMs against them and everyone instead used subsonics when the technology for supersonics was around for decades.
>>30594445
>This is asinine, when you 1) compare fleet sizes, and 2) compare capabilities of the ships in question.
This. For comparison:
>USN
Burke class, 62 total, 96 cells per ship: 5,952 total VLS cells
Tico class, 22 total, 122 cells per ship: 2,684 total VLS cells
>This is 8,636 total VLS cells just for SM-6, SM-3, SM-2ER, ESSM (which is now quad-packed for 4 ESSM per cell) plus whatever Tomahawk/LRASM loadout the SW ships are packing. There are about a thousand more cells on USN SSN/SSGNs for Tomahawk/LRASM.
>Russian Navy
Kirov class (modernized), 1 total (2 more to be refit): 96 S300, 128 9K95 (OSA-MA not counted as USN SeaRam assets not counted)
Slava class, 3 total: 192 S300
Smetlivy only has dual-launchers. Not even sure if modern battle space integrated.
Udaloy class, 9 total: 576 SA-N-9
Sovremennyy class, 8 total (3 of these undergoing modernization): 384 SA-N-12
Krivak class, 3 total: OSA-MA only, not counted, same for Bora class and Gepard class.
Neustrashimyy class, 2 total: 64 SA-N-9
Admiral Grigorovich class, 2 total: 72 cells for 3S90M
Grisha class only has twin arm launchers for SA-N-4, same for Nanuchka class.
Tarantul class only has SA-N-5, ditto Parchim class.
Buyan only has 3M47 Igla variants.
>total of 1,512 cells maximum for medium-long ranged SAMs
So, to sum up:
>the USN has a maximum 8,636 medium to long range VLS SAM cells available (with ground/AShM attack loads, say about 6,000 left for SAM/CSG escort and protection)
>the Russian Navy has a grand total of 1,512 cells maximum for medium-long ranged SAMs
Keep in mind these further points:
All USN ships listed have extensive rotary wing aviation facilities for LAMPS III choppers - an extra sensor node if nothing else (including the unlisted LCS types). Many of the Russian classes lack aviation facilities.
All USN cells are universal. Almost none of the Russian SAM VLS cells are universal, and would require specialized logistical consideration by type in the event of conflict.
>>30594445
>>30596066
Oh, and if I've forgotten or fucked up the medium-long range SAM numbers on Russian ships, one of you Russiaboos jump in and correct me. It is unintentional, there are just so many classes to track down and count.
>>30595223
>>30595248
Let's not forget that the SM-2ER is also anti-ship capable and has been for quite some time.
>>30596066
>>30596079
Let us also not forget the added anti-AShM capability provided by carrier aircraft with AIM-120s, native to the CSG and now the ESG with F-35Bs coming online.
>>30596018
your post is perfectly fine except calling a misconception a "meme" is just cancerous
not everything in life is a fucking meme, nigga
>>30596140
When vatniks just flat out spew MUH SUPERSONIC BEST EVER, then it very much is a meme.
>>30595778
Basically what I was getting at. If I recall correctly, isn't that the same story with growlers? Oodles of ewar black magic that's completely unknown to the general public?
>>30596628
>Oodles of ewar black magic that's completely unknown to the general public?
Yes. EW capability across the board may be the most closely guarded equipment capability secret in the US military. Maybe even more so than all-aspect VLO aircraft RCS numbers or USN SSN/SSGN/SSBN sonar hardware/processing capabilities or noise radiation profiles.
With a full picture of EW capabilities and radar radiation profiles, an opponent can gameplan against them in all phases of an engagement, given enough planning lead time. This is one of the many reasons why the US was so successful with so few losses against the Iraqis in 1991.
This is the reason EW testing grounds/exercises are one of the most closely guarded areas for the US military, and why the USN SSNs spend so much of their time sucking up trons close to coastlines and following deployed foreign ships.
>>30596746
Figures. It'd be real neat to get a career along those lines. Is it true a growler blacked out a quarter of NYC a decade or so ago because some chucklefuck ewar operator hit a wrong button?
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30596774
>Is it true a growler blacked out a quarter of NYC a decade or so ago because some chucklefuck ewar operator hit a wrong button?
No idea. Like I said, I'm just a simple bubblehead, not even in anymore. Sounds implausible but what do I know.
>>30588805
thank you based buk
>>30594269
Even if all that bullshit is true (is not) there is this thing called a carrier task force that is never letting any of that bullshit get through, short of a tactical theater nuke, you're gonna need to spend a considerable amount of resources and manpower to even get close to the carrier.
>>30594348
Poor brs
>>30588805
thank you based buk
>>30595067
Friendly reminder that it wasn't during the Gulf War, it wasn't a destroyer, and it didn't sink.
Or were you referring to the Sheffield? That wasn't during the Gulf War, either.
>>30596066
This is only going to get worse for Russia in the near future. They're currently only building relatively small surface combatants. The haven't laid the keel on a SUW ship larger than a frigate since 1989. Meanwhile, the US has the Flight IIA Burke restarts scheduled for two commissioned a year with three currently building, and will be building into Flight III for the forseeable future at a rate of two per year. Plus the Zumwalts. This isn't even including all the other shit the USN is building that Russia either isn't or is building 6 times as slow.
>>30596930
Sorry, make that 7 total Flight IIA restarts or Flight IIA Tech Insert Burkes building currently. 3 launched, 4 keel laid. That's about 70,000 tons SUW displacement to be commissioned over the next 4 years alone. Well over 100,000 including the Zumwalts. This is nearly as much tonnage as Russia's entire compliment of commissioned destroyers, and all of it more modern and more capable in nearly every way.
>>30595058
>nothing else is currently faster
Kh-22, Kh-15.
>No.
Yes. The higher the missile's speed is the higher the missile's energy is.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30597625
>The higher the missile's speed is the higher the missile's energy is.
This means less than nothing when the missile range is too short for the launch platform to achieve a high pK launch point. Launching from max range (which is most of the time still well inside SM-6 range and AWACS detection radius) and having no fuel left over for terminal is not a winning strategy. Not to mention the inability to get datalinked sensor platforms on site for terminal guidance.
>>30596066
>No Steregushchy, no Admiral Gorshkov, no Kuznetsov, no submarines whatsoever
Nice job, lol.
>Comparing SAMs, not comparing AShMs
Russian Navy will start having more SAMs as soon as the USN will start having actual AShMs instead of subsonic petards in current use.
>Many of the Russian classes lack aviation facilities.
Only corvettes and a couple of old frigates.
>would require specialized logistical consideration by type in the event of conflict
Non-issue. In the event of conflict VLS on USN ships won't be just stuffed with whatever lies around either.
>>30596130
>anti-AShM capability provided by carrier aircraft with AIM-120
No such capability.
>>30596930
>The haven't laid the keel on a SUW ship larger than a frigate since 1989
This retard again. Getting BTFO last two times just wasn't enough for you?
>>30597797
Missile's energy is one of the most major factor affecting intercept probability, anon.
>>30597944
>>No Steregushchy, no Admiral Gorshkov, no Kuznetsov, no submarines whatsoever
>Nice job, lol.
Tell me what medium-long range SAMs they carry and I'll be happy to add them.
I did miss the Gorshkov, so that adds another 32 medium-long range SAMs to the mix.
>>Comparing SAMs, not comparing AShMs
Russian Navy will start having more SAMs as soon as the USN will start having actual AShMs instead of subsonic petards in current use.
That was not the original assertion. The original assertion I was responding to was:>>30594269
>US spend less time making anti missile weapons than the russians,
Read the thread. However, even if we compare AShMs, it does not look good pure numbers wise for the Russian Navy, as the USN gets to add the Carrier Air Wing to that equation as well. And the Russian navy STILL has a pitifully small number of launchers.
>Only corvettes and a couple of old frigates.
Take a good look at the size and capability of the aviation facilities across the board. Which of them outside the Kirov have the same size and capacity as a Flight II Burke?
>Non-issue. In the event of conflict VLS on USN ships won't be just stuffed with whatever lies around either.
This makes no sense.
>This retard again. Getting BTFO last two times just wasn't enough for you?
No argument, only dickwaving. Honestly, I'm not sure why I expected differently.
>>30598017
>Missile's energy is one of the most major factor affecting intercept probability, anon.
Name the others. Lay it out on the table. Let's take a good look at that statement.
>>30598065
>No Steregushchy, no Admiral Gorshkov, no Kuznetsov
So, another 272 total medium or long range SAMs, then? Really closing that gap of 4,000 total VLS cells (many of which would be quad packed).
>no submarines whatsoever
Please do tell which subs carry medium or long range SAMs.
>>30598109
>4,000 total VLS cells
more like 6,500 total cells. it's just that some of those will have ground/ship attack missiles in them instead of SAMs.
>>30597944
>>Comparing SAMs, not comparing AShMs
>Russian Navy will start having more SAMs as soon as the USN will start having actual AShMs instead of subsonic petards in current use.
Typical bullshit. Ignoring what the actual post was in response to in an attempt to misdirect the conversation. Oh, no, we can't have people finding out just how weak the Russian military actually is.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30598065
>And the Russian navy STILL has a pitifully small number of launchers.
Absolute most of which are actual AShMs, not subsonic petards.
>Which of them outside the Kirov have the same size and capacity as a Flight II Burke?
Like every single one that carries Ka-27.
>No argument, only dickwaving
You enjoy being fed with shit? Project 11711, Project 885, Project 955. That is not counting a couple of Project 949A.
>Name the others
Guidance, manoeuvrability and hence the amount of g's in can pull. Are you actually ging to refer to may point of just further ridicule yourself implying hitting a car with a bullet is not easier than hitting a car with a car.
>>30598109
>many of which would be quad packed
Redut can be quad packed too. Not sure about naval S-300, but the land based systems have new missiles that are dial/quad packed too. There's also Kortik.
>Please do tell which subs carry medium or long range SAMs.
Subs were in regard to the following point.
Take a drink for every time he says "subsonic petards".
>>30588805
dutchie here. bit late for that.
>>30598487
>Absolute most of which are actual AShMs, not subsonic petards.
I love how you think if you keep repeating this, it'll be absolutely true. Instead of a complicated tradeoff between maximum range, VLO properties, flight profiles, autonomous threat response and missile energy.
>Like every single one that carries Ka-27.
So, they carry a single helicopter with less range, speed, payload and advanced systems than a LAMPS III seahawk. As opposed to the Flight II Burkes, which carry TWO seahawks apiece? Sure.
>Project 11711
Landing ship, not SUW as specified >>30596930. Also does not carry medium-long range SAMS.
>Project 885
Submarine. Not SUW. No M-L SAMs. See above.
>Project 955
Also submarine. Again, see above.
Whew, lad. Just how bad is your reading comprehension?
>Guidance, manoeuvrability and hence the amount of g's in can pull.
Ha! What bullshit. I guess we completely ignore EW factors, reliance on remote terminal guidance for good pK, autonomous response to pop-up threats, VLO properties and sensor quality. Because none of these things affect pK or intercept probabilities at all, right? Read a fucking book, man.
>Redut can be quad packed too
I checked. Anon already gave the maximum numbers for quad packed redut (notice the 192 number for Kuznetsov to make the numbers work here >>30598109).
>Subs were in regard to the following point.
Subs are apropos of absolutely fucking nothing in response to the statement >>30594269
>US ships still carry very little anti missile weapons compared to russian fleets
Please feel free to fuck off.
>>30598510
>Take a drink for every time he says "subsonic petards".
I'd like to still feel my face in half an hour.
>>30598487
>Ka-27.
Holy fucking kek. Literally the worst naval utility chopper in service in any major navy.
>>30598487
>Like every single one that carries Ka-27.
Only the Udaloys carry two of those, and they are inferior to LAMPS III Seahawks by a pretty big margin. Everything else, even Slavas, only carries one chopper. Anon above asked you to point out which ones had the same or better than a Flight II Burke, which carries two Seahawks.
>>30593911
This.
Russkies aren't gonna attack U.S. China however has some mad generals. Read a few years ago they are working on an ICBM that could be maneuvered after reentering the atmosphere to shower a navy group with mirv's. Can USN deal with that?
>>30598813
You should read up on the SM-3.
Then read up on the DF-21, which is what that system became (a single kill vehicle, conventional warhead). And, no, there is not yet any proof that it can target, adjust or receive remote guidance on reentry through the plasma shroud.
>>30598608
>a complicated tradeoff between maximum range, VLO properties, flight profiles, autonomous threat response and missile energy
So the Sizzler.
>with less range, speed, payload and advanced systems than a LAMPS III seahawk
Wet American dreams.
>Landing ship, not SUW
>Surface combatants also include mine warfare ships, amphibious command ships, coastal defense ships, amphibious assault ships, and many others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_warfare
>does not carry medium-long range SAMS
>Submarine. Not SUW. No M-L SAMs. See above.
>Also submarine. Again, see above.
Whew lad, that must be one of the most pathetic goalposts moving I have ever seen. Let me remind you why these projects were mentioned:
>The haven't laid the keel on a SUW ship larger than a frigate since 1989
So getting BTFO last two times indeed just wasn't enough for you?
>Guidance
>I guess we completely ignore EW factors, reliance on remote terminal guidance for good pK, autonomous response to pop-up threats, VLO properties and sensor quality
Imbecile. Complete fucking imbecile. Are you going to actually refer to the point I made or just further ridicule yourself?
>Anon already gave the maximum numbers for quad packed redut
American math "skills".
>Subs are apropos of absolutely fucking nothing in response to the statement
The following point of my post, not his, dumbass.
>>30598737
That was right after he back-pedalled from "Many of the Russian classes lack aviation facilities" to "well, they just mostly don't have two helicopters per ship".
>>30598870
>there is not yet any proof that it can target, adjust or receive remote guidance on reentry through the plasma shroud
Soviets did that in the early 70s. Though it's quite a huge assumption to say that gooks are capable of copying that.
>>30598964
>Wet American dreams.
I notice you don't cite any numbers. Curious.
>Whew lad, that must be one of the most pathetic goalposts moving I have ever seen. Let me remind you why these projects were mentioned:
Do you really not understand what a Surface Warfare ship is? As opposed to a fucking Sub or an Amphibious ship like a landing ship? Are you really this stupid or am I being trolled?
>Imbecile. Complete fucking imbecile. Are you going to actually refer to the point I made or just further ridicule yourself?
I might if you took the time to make a clear point rather than rambling drunkenly and throwing out random insults. What exactly were you trying to say?
>American math "skills".
Then prove it wrong. It's all in >>30596066 and >>30598109
Point out where it is incorrect.
>The following point of my post, not his, dumbass.
Yet you keep mentioning subs as if they were SUW ships. Furthermore, your following point was a goalpost-shifting attempt to pretend like the original question had anything to do with AShMs. You do realize the shit everyone says is actually written down in the thread above, right? It doesn't just disappear because you scroll down.
>That was right after he back-pedalled from "Many of the Russian classes lack aviation facilities"
There was no backpedallying. Many of the ships listed do lack aviation facilities, like all the corvettes. And the aviation facilities on everything by the Kirov are actually lacking in comparison. What is your point?
>>30599016
>4k18 r-27k
Those were not fast enough for a plasma sheath to form, anon.
>>30599016
>Soviets did that in the early 70s. Though it's quite a huge assumption to say that gooks are capable of copying that.
It also has horrific accuracy and has a small nuclear warhead. The DF-21 doesn't even have a nuclear warhead. The Chinese have no hope of hitting a moving a carrier with straight kinematics.
>>30599081
What I meant to say was that the DF-21 can't be used with a nuclear warhead against USA because that would signal that China is willing to do nuclear attacks against USA, which is bad news for China.
>>30588805
Thank you based buk
>>30588805
thankyoubased buk
>>30588805
Thank you based buk
How come when discussing a naval conflict with the USN some people seem to think the US would just sit back and allow the enemy to just attack and do nothing about it?
I would think that if someone took a shot at a USN carrier, dozens of USN attack subs would quietly start showing up near the enemy ships and coastlines.
>>30599590
Russiaboos tend to forget that USN doctrine makes the SSN/SSGNs and the carrier air wing the primary striking arm of the Navy, as opposed to Soviet/Russian doctrine of loading down surface combatant with as many big ass missiles as possible.
Then they scream bloody murder about "different doctrine" when you point out how weak their air force is.
These discussions are not an honest exploration of doctrine, tactics and available hardware. They're little more than idiotic dickwaving. That goes for the Burgers, too.
>>30599075
>I notice you don't cite any numbers
You didn't on first place.
>Curious.
Don't be. You are still BTFO.
Ka-27: range 900 km, max. speed 250 km/h, load 3,775 kg.
SH-60: range: 834 km, max. speed 270 km/h, load: 3,031 kg.
>Do you really not understand what a Surface Warfare ship is?
You don't.
>Surface combatants also include mine warfare ships, amphibious command ships, coastal defense ships, amphibious assault ships, and many others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_warfare
>What exactly were you trying to say?
Are you mentally challenged? I am trying to say that all the factors you've mentioned after "I guess we completely ignore" part are related to guidance, which I did mention. It goes like this: -One of the major factors is guidance. -Ha! Bullshit! I guess we completely ignore ...guidance!
Are you actually trying to drive the discussion away from the fact that you just fucking non-ironically implied that missile's speed does not affect intercept probability?
>>30599802
>Then prove it wrong
>So, another 272 total medium or long range SAMs, then?
>notice the 192 number for Kuznetsov to make the numbers work here >>30598109
272-192=80. Steregushchy (I am going to assume that you didn't take your time to see that the first shit is not equipped with Redut) are four corvettes with 12 Redut cells each for a total of 48 Redut cells (in reality 36, no Redut on the lead ship). Admiral Gorshkov has 32 Redut cells. That is a total of 48+32=80. Wow! How did that happen? It's almost like I just proved your math "skills" are below elementary school level. Fucking retard.
>Yet you keep mentioning subs as if they were SUW ships
No, I keep mentioning subs as they both carry anti-ship missiles and were build after 1989.
>your following point was a goalpost-shifting
Not really, I was directly saying that initial point is shit because the USN only operates subsonic petards instead of actual AShMs so no excessive quantities of air-defence is really required to defend from it.
>Many of the ships listed do lack aviation facilities, like all the corvettes
How much corvettes are there in the world that can carry helicopters?
>>30599802
>Ka-27: range 900 km, max. speed 250 km/h, load 3,775 kg.
>SH-60: range: 834 km, max. speed 270 km/h, load: 3,031 kg.
Are you high right now? First you give the ferry range for the Ka-27 but the nominal combat range for the SH-60 (ferry range is 2,220km for that, by the way). The fucking combat radius for the SH-60 is 592km for crying out loud. Then you give completely nonsensical load numbers. The max slung load rating for the SH-60 is 4,100kg. The max load you gave for the Ka-27 appears to be the max load for the Ka-32, which is not the armed utility chopper deployed on their ships.
>>30599802
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_warfare
From your own source, regarding SUW, the term under consideration:
>Surface Warfare (SuW) is conducted by a surface ship which includes Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW), Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Naval Gun Fire Support (NGFS), Riverine Operations, Mine Warfare, and Electronic Warfare.
>>30599813
>272-192=80. Steregushchy (I am going to assume that you didn't take your time to see that the first shit is not equipped with Redut) are four corvettes with 12 Redut cells each for a total of 48 Redut cells (in reality 36, no Redut on the lead ship). Admiral Gorshkov has 32 Redut cells. That is a total of 48+32=80
That's the exact number that anon came up with when adding the 4 corvettes, carrier and frigate, dipshit. Where is the supposed error?Furthermore, you did not find any errors in the original post here >>30596066 I see.
cont.
>>30599802
>>30599813
>>30600149
>No, I keep mentioning subs as they both carry anti-ship missiles and were build after 1989.
That was not the question. The question was about SAMs. As has been mentioned many, many times. Maybe if you could stop trying to move goalposts for five fucking seconds, you'd understand this.
>Not really, I was directly saying that initial point is shit because the USN only operates subsonic petards instead of actual AShMs so no excessive quantities of air-defence is really required to defend from it.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the statement being answered, which was, one more time for the fucking retards: >>30594269
>US ships still carry very little anti missile weapons compared to russian fleets
>How much corvettes are there in the world that can carry helicopters?
The statement was correct. Corvettes were listed in >>30596066. They do not have aviation facilities. Deal with it.
>>30599802
>>30599813
I love how hard he squirms to distract from the simple facts that the USN carries a metric fuckton more SAMs, has better aviation facilities on it's ships across the board, has almost as much tonnage building as the entire commissioned Russian navy while the Russian navy apparently can't even build destroyers anymore, much less carriers.
Keep calling them "petards", anon. We'll be over here laughing our asses off.
>>30600160
>US ships still carry very little anti missile weapons compared to russian fleets
Zero citation. Assertion dismissed.
>>30600220
That's literally what the retard said. Which is what the anon here >>30596066 was responding to. Which is what you then, like a fucking retard, responded to with >>30597944.
Reading comprehension. Do you fucking even?
>>30600149
>>30600160
>>30600197
Would you fucking idiots stop feeding the troll? He's on here every goddamn day, and he'll do nothing but keep screaming irrelevant shit and ignoring any new information that might undermine his position. He'll literally do this for the next 140 posts until thread death, and he'll sit and watch the fucking thread die so he can be sure to get the last word it. That's the kind of autism you're arguing with.
Just. Don't.
>>30593714
A chinese submarine surfaced a mile from a carrier undetected, so........
>>30600279
I love it when completely uneducated idiots comment on naval warfare matters. Please, tell us more. I'm making popcorn.
>>30588805
thank you based buk
>>30600220
it's true, because fuckoff massive navy, carrier borne aircraft and attack subs
they don't carry tons of missiles because there aren't that many ships in the ocean
>>30600400
>they don't carry tons of missiles because there aren't that many ships in the ocean
What the fuck are you high on right now?
Do I need to point out >>30596066 yet again?
>>30587687
They'd like to think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl4qKcIQVzc
But they just want to believe everyone else will be as impotent as them in projecting power.
Without aircraft carriers, amphibious attacks are basically impossible, as is operating against any country you don't have a willing ally bordered next to. There's no reason to think they'll go away. It's like saying Tanks are obsolete because of anti-tank missiles - you take away tanks and defences become incredibly difficult for infantry to overcome. You need frontline direct artillery fire - a tank.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30600468
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl4qKcIQVzc
What's hilarious about this video is the simple fact that China is actively building aircraft carriers, while trying to sell to their own people and the world that aircraft carriers are useless.
>>30600544
South Front is good for Syria updates but you have to remember it's run by a Serb who's still butthurt about NATO bombing them for committing genocide; failing to recognize that his reasons are horrific, he's proceeded to launch a full-on propaganda station just to lash back at the US and convince himself and everyone else they're not as powerful as they seem while deluding himself into thinking Russia's dilapidated military is capable of defeating the US army.
If he's gonna suck anyone's cock, and least suck China's.
>>30600608
>>>30600400
*at least
>>30600617
Why the fuck did it quote 30600400?
>>30600634
Because cancer gets into everything.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30594392
Do you remember back in the 90's when the USN accidentally shot a Turkish hip with some anti-air missiles (two sea sparrows)and got a head-shot right on the bridge?
This Wikipedia page has more details than I remember. I don't think I ever knew we had to board them for damage control reasons because; well, we had killed everyone on the bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCG_Muavenet_(DM_357)
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30600745
>before
>>30600745
>>30600803
>after
damn son
>>30588805
thank you based buk
>>30600822
>>30600149
>ferry range for the Ka-27 but the nominal combat range for the SH-60
Wet American dreams.
>The max slung load rating for the SH-60 is 4,100kg
>slung load
Ka-27 max slung load is 5000kg. Empty Ka-27 weights 6500kg and has max takeoff weight of 12500kg. Empty SH-60 weights 6900kg and has max takeoff weight of 10700kg. Do the math. Oh wait, I forgot, you can't.
>From your own source
Keep reading. An important facet of naval warfare are however the support ships (that is, non-combat ships): freighters, oilers, hospital ships, tugs, troop transports, and others.
>Where is the supposed error?
The error is at that part where a retard with below elementary school level math skills, i.e. you, said that what that anon came up with is "the maximum numbers for quad packed redut".
>That was not the question.
Yes it was, retard. It was specifically referred to that part where you said that "The haven't laid the keel on a SUW ship larger than a frigate since 1989". You can squeal about "muh surface warfare" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Russia did built submarines with the displacement of cruisers and battlecruisers, as well as a large landing ship and halves of their Mistrals.
>This has absolutely nothing to do with the statement being answered
Which is why in my message I specifically pointed out what I am talking about. Our statements don't even contradict each other from the perspective of the post he was answering to.
>They do not have aviation facilities
Steregushchy were not listed, they do have aviation facilities. You didn't answer the question. How many corvettes are there in the world with the displacement of Buyan, Tarantul or Grisha that can carry helicopters? Gepard is the size of the corvettes that do, but it is old and the new Gepards for Vietnam do carry helicopters. Steregushchy class is the size of the corvettes that do and it does carry a helicopter.
>>30594094
>/k/s been going down the drain since 14
HAHAHAHA YOU'RE THE BIGGEST FUCKING FAGGOT IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD.
>>30600822
At least we know the missiles work.
>>30588805
thank you based buk
>>30600849
>Ka-27 max slung load is 5000kg. Empty Ka-27 weights 6500kg and has max takeoff weight of 12500kg. Empty SH-60 weights 6900kg and has max takeoff weight of 10700kg. Do the math. Oh wait, I forgot, you can't.
Nice source there. Oh, wait.
>Keep reading. An important facet of naval warfare are however the support ships (that is, non-combat ships): freighters, oilers, hospital ships, tugs, troop transports, and others.
The Russian navy, everyone. Defining naval warfare terms using Wikipedia, one term at a time.
>The error is at that part where a retard with below elementary school level math skills, i.e. you, said that what that anon came up with is "the maximum numbers for quad packed redut".
Then you are also that retarded, because your numbers were exactly the same.
>Yes it was, retard. It was specifically referred to that part where you said that "The haven't laid the keel on a SUW ship larger than a frigate since 1989". You can squeal about "muh surface warfare" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Russia did built submarines with the displacement of cruisers and battlecruisers, as well as a large landing ship and halves of their Mistrals.
Submarines are pretty much the definition of "not surface warfare". If you're counting a fucking "large" 6,000 ton landing ship as a SUW ship, your navy is pretty spectacularly awful. But fine. Count them. Seriously, go ahead. Now compare your 4 subs and one shitty landing ship to
>61 Burkes
>3 Zumwalts
>6 supercarriers
>8 LHD/LHAs
>16 SSNs
>3 SSBNs
>11 LPDs
>4 LSDs
>plus dozens of auxiliaries and smaller amphibious ships
all over 6,000 tons, all laid down since 1989, which was the last time Russia managed to lay down a serious surface combatant destroyer sized or larger. Think about that. In 27 years, the only things larger than a Frigate the Russian navy has managed to lay down has been two excruciatingly slowly built sub classes, a single landing ship and some icebreakers.
>>30600849
>Our statements don't even contradict each other from the perspective of the post he was answering to.
No they don't. Your statement was just insulting and apropos of absolutely nothing in the conversation. Congrats. You are that asshole that just walks up on a conversation and spergs out over some completely unrelated bullshit.
>Steregushchy were not listed, they do have aviation facilities. You didn't answer the question. How many corvettes are there in the world with the displacement of Buyan, Tarantul or Grisha that can carry helicopters? Gepard is the size of the corvettes that do, but it is old and the new Gepards for Vietnam do carry helicopters. Steregushchy class is the size of the corvettes that do and it does carry a helicopter.
See? More unrelated bullshit to distract from the actual point.
>>30601046
>Submarines are pretty much the definition of "not surface warfare". If you're counting a fucking "large" 6,000 ton landing ship as a SUW ship, your navy is pretty spectacularly awful. But fine. Count them. Seriously, go ahead. Now compare your 4 subs and one shitty landing ship to
>>61 Burkes
>>3 Zumwalts
>>6 supercarriers
>>8 LHD/LHAs
>>16 SSNs
>>3 SSBNs
>>11 LPDs
>>4 LSDs
>>plus dozens of auxiliaries and smaller amphibious ships
>all over 6,000 tons, all laid down since 1989, which was the last time Russia managed to lay down a serious surface combatant destroyer sized or larger.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30587687
>>30601046
>Nice source there. Oh, wait.
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sh/ka27.html#LTH
>Lies!
>Surface combatants also include mine warfare ships, amphibious command ships, coastal defense ships, amphibious assault ships, and many others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_warfare
Stay mad.
>your numbers were exactly the same
It's the number of cells that that anon calculated, imbecile, while you implied that it is "the maximum numbers for quad packed redut". Do you even understand what "quad packed" means? Oh my god, how is it even humanely possible to be such a brainless faggot like you?
>Submarines are pretty much the definition of "not surface warfare".
It does not make them any smaller or older. They are fuckhuge and they were and are being build after 1989 contrary to your pitiful attempt to imply Russia can't build anything larger than a frigate since than.
>B-but what About murican navy!
Pathetic goalposts moving. No one ever implied they are building more than the US.
>>30601272
Less than that actually, 0.50 cents in Chinese currency is less than a single cent in USD.
>>30601070
One of the points in that post was considering aviation facilities. How is it "unrelated bullshit to distract from the actual point", retard? I see you keep trying to ignore the question. Let me repeat. How many corvettes are there in the world with the displacement of Buyan, Tarantul or Grisha that can carry helicopters?
>>30601333
Let me repeat. How many of those ships have aviation facilities as extensive as the Ticos or most of the Burkes? Oh, that's right. Just the Kirov class and arguably the Udaloys. That's 10 total ships. All the others either have no facilities or carry only one chopper. Literally none of your stupid misdirection or goalpost shifting will change this simple fact.
>>30595067
>literally
even the vatniks use that word wrong now
>>30588805
thank you based buk
>>30601289
>No one ever implied they are building more than the US.
Then what is your point? Seriously. You claim the Russian Navy is in any way a match for the USN with your "muh superdupersonic AShMs" yet you concede the simple fact that the USN has laid the keel on double the total commissioned tonnage of the entire Russian navy since 1989, a navy over 2/3 of which features ships which are older than most of the posters on 4chan.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
>>30601436
The point is that contrary to your pitiful attempt to imply Russia can't build anything larger than a frigate since 1989, it can.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30601289
>They are fuckhuge
I love how this is a point of pride for slavaboos. Can't think about how loud they are or how good their sonars are, oh no. Let's talk about how big they are.
Also, the limiting factor for building surface warships of large displacement has to do with beam and total height. Subs are almost exclusively constructed indoors these days for security and because they are notably small in these two dimensions. You can't build a fucking destroyer indoors unless you're building the modules inside and assembling it outside.
>>30601485
>The point is that contrary to your pitiful attempt to imply Russia can't build anything larger than a frigate since 1989, it can.
Then why hasn't it? Seriously. One good fucking reason why they haven't laid down a single destroyer, cruiser, battlecruiser, helicopter carrier, fleet carrier, supercarrier, LHD/LHA or LPD since the fucking Michael Keaton/Tim Burton Batman was in theatres.
>inb4 Mistral
Building half a fucking ship because they had to go begging for the technical know-how hardly counts.
>>30599081
hell, the DF-21 LOOKs like a nuke since its a ballistic weapon. Just like Prompt Global Strike, if it looks like a nuke, it can';t ever be used.
>>30601515
It's about the tonnage of the ships that they can build, imbecile.
>Project 955, Project 885
>Loud
Top fucking kek.
>You can't build a fucking destroyer indoors
Except that Project 955 is longer than a Burke and that Burkes are constructed indoors.
>>30601670
>that Burkes are constructed indoors.
No, they aren't dipshit. Those were only the first half dozen modules just before they moved it outside next to the Monsoor, pic related. You'll notice that's only half the ship in your pic and no room above it to finish the superstructure or mast.
>>30601670
>longer
Anon clearly noted that beam and height were the issue. Why do you not pay attention?
>>30601670
So... what you're claiming is the Russians actually have an advanced warship construction shipyard capable of modular construction like in your pic there? Because that seems like what you're trying to say. And it's just precious.
>>30588805
Thank you based Buk
>>30600803
>>30600822
Jesus Christ a Gearing in 1990.
God damn those things lasted.
>>30601545
>Then why hasn't it?
It has.
>One good fucking reason why they haven't laid down a single destroyer
Because their country collapsed and they didn't have money for that during 90s. By the time their economy was somewhat afloat their navy started to age. Right now they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - funding the replacement of aging ships in service with smaller modern ones with equivalent combat capabilities, building submarines and developing a modern destroyer project. Were they doing it vice-versa, whey would right now remain without most of the modern ships they've built with bankrupt shipyards but with a finished R&D on a new destroyer. Use your loaf and think which variant is better.
>>30601848
Allen M. Sumner actually.
Which are older, though not by much, as both are WW2 ships.
>>30601868
>Because their country collapsed and they didn't have money for that during 90s. By the time their economy was somewhat afloat their navy started to age. Right now they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - funding the replacement of aging ships in service with smaller modern ones with equivalent combat capabilities, building submarines and developing a modern destroyer project. Were they doing it vice-versa, whey would right now remain without most of the modern ships they've built with bankrupt shipyards but with a finished R&D on a new destroyer. Use your loaf and think which variant is better.
And, what? You think they're not building a destroyer right now is because they don't have the money? Really? It has nothing to do with all the brain drain, facilities degradation, and skilled labor retirement/emigration? Right.
>>30601670
The Russians don't have the capability to build ships like this yet anon.
In fact that's part of the reason they bought the Mistral. To better learn how all that shit works.
>>30601734
They are constructed indoors and then assembled outside, including superstructures and masts. What was your point again? That they what, can't put a superstructure on a ship or what?
>>30601761
>beam
Not fatter than Typhoon-class.
>height
That's why no one puts superstructures on ships inside.
>>30601783
>So... what you're claiming is the Russians actually have an advanced warship construction shipyard capable of modular construction like in your pic there?
That's how they constructed their halves of Mistrals. That's how they construct submarines.
>For the boat production, Rubin and PO «Sevmash» (Severodvinsk) introduced an innovative aggregate-and-modular method of construction. Subsequently it was widely adopted in shipbuilding.
http://ckb-rubin.ru/en/projects/naval_engineering/nuclear_powered_ballistic_missile_submarines/
>>30601981
No, I think that they are not building a destroyer right now because the R&D isn't finished yet.
>>30602272
>>30602291
>>30602305
>building a frigate by modules indoors is the same thing as building a 15,000 ton destroyer the same way
>we totally knew how to do this before the French sold us the full coloring book instruction manual
>>30602353
>No, I think that they are not building a destroyer right now because the R&D isn't finished yet.
It's taken them 27 years to get R&D on a destroyer class done?
Ok.
No, that totally fills me with the confidence to believe this is something they could have done at any time in the last 27 years, and simply chose not to.
>>30602272
>>30602291
>>30602305
Look at those pics. Now look at >>30601670 again. Tell me what you see.
>>30602305
I'm looking at this.
>>30602256
And this.
Then I'm looking at this: >>30601734
And I'm thinking, what is this slavboo even trying to prove at this point?
>>30602378
>It's taken them 27 years to get R&D on a destroyer class done?
No, dumbass. First their country collapsed and they didn't have money for that during 90s. Then as their economy was somewhat afloat their navy started to age. So they were funding the replacement of aging ships in service with smaller modern ones with equivalent combat capabilities, building submarines and developing a modern destroyer project. Not for 27 years, but since the time they could afford it.
>and simply chose not to
They didn't "simply chose not to", they didn't have money to. Like I said, if they doing it vice-versa, whey would right now remain without most of the modern ships they've built with bankrupt shipyards but with a finished R&D on a new destroyer. Use your loaf and think which variant is better.
>>30602436
>>30602493
That's to illustrate modular indoor construction and outdoors assembly, dumbasses.
>>30602546
So what you're telling me is Russia, up to and including today, since 1989, is unable to lay the keel on any surface combat ship destroyer sized or larger. Which was my entire fucking point.
Thank you for saying exactly what I've been saying this whole fucking time in a new and exciting way.
>>30602569
That's a fucking Typhoon, dumbass. No one is arguing that the Soviets could do it back in the day. The question was whether the capability still existed for large surface combat warships. Which is a different thing entirely. Which you might know if you knew anything about the subject.
>>30588805
Thank you based buk
>>30602588
"Not having money to" and "not having an ability to" are two different things, imbecile. They've built 4 Sovremennyy-class destroyers for China, two in the 90s and another two in the early 00s. They converted an aircraft carrier for India. They are building submarines with the displacement of cruisers and battlecruisers for themselves. They've constructed their halves of Mistrals. And they were developing a modern destroyer project as their shipyards are replacing their aging ships with the new ones. They are more than capable of building a fucking destroyer as soon as the R&D is finished.
>>30602604
>The question was whether the capability still existed for large surface combat warships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovremennyy-class_destroyer#PLA.28N.29
Large enough for you?
>>30594348
>be BR
>hey whats going on here, can I play war too?
>system is kind enough to warn me 1 second before being killed
>"lol u r fucked" blinks on the screen
>instantly get hit by over 300 missiles
wew lads
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30602714
>"not having an ability to"
Still missing the point of what happens to perishable skilled labor forces and design bureaus when you don't build things like that for 27 years. Still completely ignorant as to how the military shipbuilding industry works. Still thinking all those workers there during the soviet years are somehow magically still around. Still thinking all that equipment is somehow still viable, much less kept pace with shipbuilding innovations.
But I am not going to still argue this with a hopeless ass like yourself.
>>30602741
So they built 4 destroyers for China in between 1999 and 2006. And charged them almost as much as a Burke apiece for them. Building a Soviet design. Ok.
>>30602827
>when you don't build things like that for 27 years
So you are not just an imbecile, you're also blind?
What are you autists arguing about? Anyone who thinks Russia's shipbuilding industry isn't completely fucked is retarded. Stop feeding trolls.
>>30602866
see >>30602852
They reproduced a soviet design for export, it was expensive as all fuck and took them forever. congrats.
Where are the new design ships? Just a single one for a class larger than a Frigate? It's been 27 fucking years, anon.
>>30602889
Is this the part where you start to hysterically squeal "LIES DOESNT COUNT!"? Fucking imbecile.
>They reproduced a soviet design for export
They didn't "reproduce" anything because it was not lost on the first place. Wait, what was that sound? Oh, it's your point about "inability to build a destroyer and lost soviet technologies" flying into the window.
>it was expensive as all fuck
You just pulled it out of your fat ass.
>and took them forever
Taizhou laid down 3 July 2002, commissioned 28 December 2005 - 3.5 years. Ningbo laid down 15 November 2002, commissioned 28 September 2006 - 4 years.
DDG-95 laid down 15 July 2002, commissioned 11 December 2004 - 2.5 years.
>Where are the new design ships?
In development, retard. I posted a couple projects above.
>>30588816
>>30592911
>>30593706
>>30594026
>>30594097
>>30594098
>>30594301
>>30594376
>>30594389
>>30594397
>>30594461
>>30595064
>>30595078
>>30595080
>>30595100
>>30595137
>>30595189
>>30595941
>>30596784
>>30596818
>>30596894
>>30597641
>>30598401
>>30598462
>>30598517
>>30599106
>>30599302
>>30599460
>>30600347
>>30600493
>>30600710
>>30600728
>>30600772
>>30600824
>>30600924
>>30601254
>>30601414
>>30601494
>>30601838
>>30602664
>>30602749
bunch of based buk cucks
>>30588947
kek
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
Don't chinks have a specialized "carrier killer" missile? So yeah, good luck defending against that.
>>30606092
>So yeah, good luck defending against that
I appreciate you wishing us luck, but honestly we dont need it.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30606116
>idiot thinks that a modern missile can destroy another modern missile
ahahahah
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
Are the chinese and russian capable of shooting down anything in space?
>>30587687
So useless that Russia and China both want to build more of them...
>>30588805
Thank you based buk
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
>>30606092
>carrier killer
They wrote that on there with a Sharpie. Now if they could just get past their killchain issues, and the fact that ballistic missiles suck against moving targets, they might be on to something.
>>30588805
THANK YOU BASED BUK
