Soviet Navy

[CJackson]

After the Great Patriotic War, how rapid was the buildup of naval power?

In what way(s) was the USSR ahead of NATO in naval technology?

What was the most number ships the Soviet navy had active at any one time?

[TR1]

google is indeed your friend.

[CJackson]

google is indeed your friend.

Not really. I tried it, and didn't find any relevant information.

[TR1]

http://www.russianwarrior.com/STMMain.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mf-intro-s.htm

I quickly found these links, they might have some of the info you are looking for. I am going out for today, but if you want some more detailed info I will PM you some links tommorow.

[CJackson]

Thank you.

[Lazarou]

The Soviet Military Power publications of the US DoD might provide some useful info:

http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_index.htm

[xEDGEx]

www.hazegray.org is a pretty good reference for ships, but mostly American.

[GazB]

The Soviet Military Power publications of the US DoD might provide some useful info:


Would take US DoD soviet military power publications with enormous grain of salt. They are propaganda publications that do not try to work out power, but assume possible power. As such, while they are negative in intent (ie the Soviets did everything for the worst possible reasons because they were evil) they also made extreme projections and over estimated a lot of stuff, presumably to justify high western defence spending and in fact often to try to make a case for increased western defence spending.
The reality is that although they had SNI or Soviet Naval Infantry units like the marines and they also had a few carriers they were never anything like what the US has or had, or even what the royal navy had. The Soviet Naval Infantry would likely be used in the baltics or at most europe, they were not a global force for global deployment and the Soviet navy never had a world wide reach. All the aircraft carriers they ever got into service were naval defence carriers... ie no strike capability for global reach... just fighters to protect the fleet... and the purpose of the fleet was to protect the SSBNs. Only in the area of SSBNs (subs equipped with Submarine Launched Balistic Missiles) did they achieve anything close to what the US was doing. The US has dropped conventionally powered subs so in that area the Russians have an advantage but in attack and missile subs there are areas where the US is ahead and areas where the Soviets and Russians were ahead.

[Johnny_H02]

www.hazegray.org (http://www.hazegray.org) is a pretty good reference for ships, but mostly American.

:D these are pretty much all of my hometown

the shot of the Europa and HMCS Sackville is beautifull.

[Atlantic Friend]

After the Great Patriotic War, how rapid was the buildup of naval power?

In what way(s) was the USSR ahead of NATO in naval technology?

What was the most number ships the Soviet navy had active at any one time?

You could have a look at the very rapid growth of the USSR submarine fleet. I think the driving force behind it was a Russian admiral called Gorshkov, so maybe you could start by searching his name ?

Another thing : the Soviet Army was largely build ton ensure continental supremacy in Eurasia. The rapid growth of the 1960s-1970s indicated a certain shift of strategic objectives from part of the Soviet Union, notably as it became increasingly involved in conflicts or hot spots in the Third World. Maybe you should have a look at what google and history books have in store under "Leonid Brejnev".

[GDS_Starfury]

there were various things that the Soviets tried. Some successful some not. They had the first titanium hulled sub with the Alfa that also had the first production liquid metal reactor. They also came up with the Typhoon and as far as I know their ASW kit and training used to be pretty decent. You also had the Soviet Navy once leading the world in shipboard missile systems and dedicated long range aircraft. Backfires and Bears could have been a real serious headache. The biggest problem that they had IMHO was that they never had any kind of real world blue water navy experience. Yes I know they fielded a blue water navy but the actual experience of how to use it was far behind the NATO powers. They would have also had to fight their way out of the North Atlantic and NW Pacific and they were more or less bottled up in the Black Sea.

[GroznyConquerer]

there were various things that the Soviets tried. Some successful some not. They had the first titanium hulled sub with the Alfa that also had the first production liquid metal reactor. They also came up with the Typhoon and as far as I know their ASW kit and training used to be pretty decent. You also had the Soviet Navy once leading the world in shipboard missile systems and dedicated long range aircraft. Backfires and Bears could have been a real serious headache. The biggest problem that they had IMHO was that they never had any kind of real world blue water navy experience. Yes I know they fielded a blue water navy but the actual experience of how to use it was far behind the NATO powers. They would have also had to fight their way out of the North Atlantic and NW Pacific and they were more or less bottled up in the Black Sea. Stop It will you, you've haven't been eating your wheaties lately haven't you hahaha, Soviet Navy was poping up all over San Francisco, L.A. San Diageo, get outa here with that.:cantbeli:

[GDS_Starfury]

visiting San Fransisco and conduction combat operations with hundreds of ships and planes are two very different things. perhaps you could enlighten my on the last time the Soviet Navy traveled far from home and stood on station in combat or when they actually strangled a countries shipping for real?

[GroznyConquerer]

visiting San Fransisco and conduction combat operations with hundreds of ships and planes are two very different things. perhaps you could enlighten my on the last time the Soviet Navy traveled far from home and stood on station in combat or when they actually strangled a countries shipping for real? 1987 when Soviet Subs were last in U.S. During Cold War, the last time was during WW2 but if your going to rebute with "WE (USA) have been doing it scince the 90's and now", thats argument is weak, scince your always doing it to second class Militaries, U.S.A ain't the sole Superpower with a SUPRIEM REDORD.

[Knutsen]

A little off-topic about the thread of the Ekranoplanes... Were they navy or air force ? (or simply experiments regardelss of branch)?

[GDS_Starfury]

I guess your missing the idea of institutional knowledge that the USN and its NATO allies had gained during WW2 at the very least and every conflict since then to one degree or another. the Soviet Navy had a lot of things on the ball and I said as much but you cant replace real experience no matter how much you train. Launching a carrier strike still involves real weapons no matter who its directed against. The last time the Russians sent a fleet far from home for the purpose of combat it got creamed. Their logistics, even today, just arnt up to the task.

Since you know so much why dont you try answering the threads original question instead of being some smack talking dingleberry without a clue except what your allowed to watch on the History Channel before mommy calls you to dinner.

[GroznyConquerer]

I guess your missing the idea of institutional knowledge that the USN and its NATO allies had gained during WW2 at the very least and every conflict since then to one degree or another. the Soviet Navy had a lot of things on the ball and I said as much but you cant replace real experience no matter how much you train. Launching a carrier strike still involves real weapons no matter who its directed against. The last time the Russians sent a fleet far from home for the purpose of combat it got creamed. Their logistics, even today, just arnt up to the task.

Since you know so much why dont you try answering the threads original question instead of being some smack talking dingleberry without a clue except what your allowed to watch on the History Channel before mommy calls you to dinner. Your History Channel tells mostly lies, I reponded to a "American-Propaganda Comment" made by (GDS_Starfury) U can't handle It :)

[ViktorNavorski]

[soviet/russia Strong!!!!111!!1!!1111!!!!]

[Coop]

After the Great Patriotic War, how rapid was the buildup of naval power?The Red Fleet/Soviet Navy suffered considerable losses during WWII, and the work on many large ships was cancelled, but new ships were built too, some were captured/taken over in 1944 (mostly in Romanian and Bulgarian ports), and plenty of others obtained from US and UK via lend-lease. Most of the later had to be returned in the period 1949-1950. The first task was therefore to:

a) replace completely obsolete hulls left from Carist times;
b) replace losses from fighting with Germans and Romanians;
c) replace ships that had to be returned according to lend-lease programmes.

The first post-war Soviet fleet-rebuilding programme (for period 1946-1952), was initially based on idea of replacing hulls mentioned above. Now, the main problem was that the Red Fleet was not as omnipresent in the public opinion like the Red Army; correspondingly, it was not obtaining finanical means required for recovery. The second that the People's Committee for Maritime Matters (an equivalent to Navy Department), was disbanded and included into the Defence Committee, in 1946.

True enough, Moscow was relatively fast to reconize USN carriers as a major threat for Soviet naval security, but there was understanding that the USSR couldn't compete with the US naval power for decades to come. Therefore, the re-building of the Red Navy was initially slow: it was not before 1949 that the Soviets launched their first trully massive programmes - mainly related with building hundreds of submarines based on German Typ XXI design, from WWII.

The first three classes are best-known in the West as "W" (or Whiskey), "R" (or "Romeo") and M-XV: the construction of first of these began in 1949 and there was a plan to build 900 W-class subs alone.

They were followed by 100 larger Q-class boats (development of which was slow, and none was constructed before 1954). Eventually, the idea about 900 subs proved too enthusiastic and barely half that number was built - of all of these classes, in total. Only in the early 1950s did the Soviets conclude they might need also boats for interdiction of US-British convoys in the Northern Atlantic, or - even more so - interception of USN carrier battle groups way off their coasts - and this is when the construction Z- and F-classes began.

Aside from subs, in the early 1950s the Soviets began also building Sverdlovsk- and Tchapayev-class gun cruisers, and then 80 destroyers of the Skoriy-class, etc. But, not much was undertaken at earlier times (i.e. during the period 1945-1952).


In what way(s) was the USSR ahead of NATO in naval technology?In none.

Surely, some of their systems (especially anti-ship missiles) were imposing, and (especially in the 1970s), they developed imposing warship and submarine designs, but this was out of necessity: the Soviet Navy planned to fight differently than the USN (where air power was dominant), and the technology available to it was more cumbersome. Therefore, in not few cases they required larger ships and subs.

But, in summary, no Soviet naval system was ever ahead of comparative Western technology.


What was the most number ships the Soviet navy had active at any one time?In the early 1980s (say 1981-1983) the Soviet Navy was the closest in numbers to the USN, just for example. At the time it has had a total of approx 110 nuclear and 330 conventional subs, six aircraft- and helicopter carriers (even if one of carriers was not to become operational for years to come), 39 cruisers, 114 destroyers, 108 frigates, 116 corvettes, 120 missile- and 60 torpedo-boats, 50 gunboats, 170 patrol boats, 413 mine-hunters, 175 landing ships, and over 800 support ships.

The high point in regards of the number of simultaneously operational warships was probably reached during the Northern Atlantic exercises ("Sumerex '84"), in summer of 1984.

Barely two years later, most of these ships were inoperational and iddling around their anchors....

[TR1]

But, in summary, no Soviet naval system was ever ahead of comparative Western technology.


and in that you summerize your knowlege of the soviet NAvy.
no system ahead of its western counterparts???
Did the western navies have anything to comapre with the supersonic cruise missles routinely mounted on soviet ships??? What about supercavitating torpedoes? What about air-cushion vehicles?

[Coop]

and in that you summerize your knowlege of the soviet NAvy.
no system ahead of its western counterparts???Errr... you mean, I should go on with details about malfunctioning equipment, permanent lacks of spares and immense problems due to poor maintenance, rusty and filthy ships, incompetent and alcoholised officers, lack of discipline and similar...?


Did the western navies have anything to comapre with the supersonic cruise missles routinely mounted on soviet ships???Read my post more carefully: this does not mean that such crude and obsolete technology (and, even more so: countermeasures against it) wasn't available in the West. The Western navies intended to fight well-supported by air; Soviets had to compensate for their lack of air support. That's why they were building high-speed cruise missiles.


What about supercavitating torpedoes?Technology well-known in the West, and not introduced because of its inherent instability (as illustrated by a catastrophic accident of a certain nuclear-powered sub, three years back).


What about air-cushion vehicles?The first hoovercraft was pattented by an Englishman, Christopher Cockerell, in the 1950s. So, this technology was nothing new in the West either. Bear in mind I'm talking here about technological advantage, not about widespread service entry. Besides, especially at the times of the Cold War - say, in the 1970s and 1980s - the British have had the most advanced technology and Iranians the largest fleet.

If you're already so much in need of something, it's the ekranoplanes: this is an idea nobody in the West pursued.

[GDS_Starfury]

What about air-cushion vehicles?

again its a matter of actual operational use. the US military has already taken its hovercraft to war. Had the Soviet military? And I would submit here and now that Soviet designs in this field are quite impressive.

[GazB]

The first hoovercraft was pattented by an Englishman, Christopher Cockerell, in the 1950s. So, this technology was nothing new in the West either. Bear in mind I'm talking here about technological advantage, not about widespread service entry.

So because something is invented in the west it is not possible for say a Zubr class hovercraft to be better than a US LCAC?

You said the Soviets had nothing that was better than the west. The Kirov battle cruiser was worse than which individual western ship... and don't say an Iowa class battleship. They were both overmanned and over weight. Their armour is great if the Kirov attacked with its 130mm guns but the reality is that it would more likely fire a nuclear armed Granit. And the Iowas defence from that barrage of 20 mach 2.5 missiles with at least 6 of them nuclear armed was what? Sea Sparrows and Phalanx?


Errr... you mean, I should go on with details about malfunctioning equipment, permanent lacks of spares and immense problems due to poor maintenance, rusty and filthy ships, incompetent and alcoholised officers, lack of discipline and similar...?

You will never find anything like that in any other navy... guess the Soviets must have invented all of that... :rolleyes:


The Western navies intended to fight well-supported by air; Soviets had to compensate for their lack of air support. That's why they were building high-speed cruise missiles.


Yes, your depth of knowledge is astounding. I guess Naval Aviation was a modest sized air fleet? The fact that it was ground based doesn't mean it couldn't support its fleets, it just limited the reach of the fleets... and of course because the Soviets had no empire or sea line of communications to protect it was basically a coastal force.


Technology well-known in the West, and not introduced because of its inherent instability (as illustrated by a catastrophic accident of a certain nuclear-powered sub, three years back).


Hahahahahaha... Genius. The Kursk sank because of a HTP powered missile. Hydrogen peroxide is not used in Shkvals. Their first rocket powered super cavitating torpedo was the RAT-52 which as the designation suggests entered service in the early 50s. It could be air launched or fired from subs or ships or from coastal positions.


If you're already so much in need of something, it's the ekranoplanes: this is an idea nobody in the West pursued.

You'd better tell the americans then. They are designing a very large transport ekranoplan, or wing in ground effect aircraft (WIG) as they call it.


again its a matter of actual operational use. the US military has already taken its hovercraft to war. Had the Soviet military? And I would submit here and now that Soviet designs in this field are quite impressive.


So weapon systems are only better if you have used them? The best weapons wouldn't be used at all most of the time because of their deterrent effect.


In none.

Surely, some of their systems (especially anti-ship missiles) were imposing, and (especially in the 1970s), they developed imposing warship and submarine designs, but this was out of necessity: the Soviet Navy planned to fight differently than the USN (where air power was dominant), and the technology available to it was more cumbersome. Therefore, in not few cases they required larger ships and subs.

But, in summary, no Soviet naval system was ever ahead of comparative Western technology.


So the liquid metal nuclear reactors that the Soviets used operationally in their Alfa class nuclear subs were not ahead of the liquid metal reactors the US tested in a retired Sub? Being better on paper is no great achievement. Getting something operational is much harder than the paper design phase of design.
A good example would be the ANS the Germans and French were collaborating on. They wanted a missile that weighed about 800kg or less to fly a mach 2.5 for 50-70km to be used as an antiship missile. Propulsion was to be combined rocket ramjet. The project got nowhere. At the same time the Soviets had a similar project for an anti radiation missile. They saw the paper design of the ANS and added an anti ship requirement to their design, which was already completed. The Result was the Kh-31A, an anti ship missile based on the Kh-31P Anti radiation missile. Range against destroyer sized targets was 50km and its other figures match or better those planned for the ANS. Mach 3 flight speed, 610kg launch weight. The anti radiation version was in service before the ANS was cancelled and the Kh-31P was ready a year or two later.
Their experience with high speed anti ship missiles also led them to create KASHTAN-M with 2 x 30mm gatling guns and 32 x 10km range SAMs on one mount.

[TR1]

So because something is invented in the west it is not possible for say a Zubr class hovercraft to be better than a US LCAC?

You said the Soviets had nothing that was better than the west. The Kirov battle cruiser was worse than which individual western ship... and don't say an Iowa class battleship. They were both overmanned and over weight. Their armour is great if the Kirov attacked with its 130mm guns but the reality is that it would more likely fire a nuclear armed Granit. And the Iowas defence from that barrage of 20 mach 2.5 missiles with at least 6 of them nuclear armed was what? Sea Sparrows and Phalanx?



You will never find anything like that in any other navy... guess the Soviets must have invented all of that... :rolleyes:



Yes, your depth of knowledge is astounding. I guess Naval Aviation was a modest sized air fleet? The fact that it was ground based doesn't mean it couldn't support its fleets, it just limited the reach of the fleets... and of course because the Soviets had no empire or sea line of communications to protect it was basically a coastal force.



Hahahahahaha... Genius. The Kursk sank because of a HTP powered missile. Hydrogen peroxide is not used in Shkvals. Their first rocket powered super cavitating torpedo was the RAT-52 which as the designation suggests entered service in the early 50s. It could be air launched or fired from subs or ships or from coastal positions.



You'd better tell the americans then. They are designing a very large transport ekranoplan, or wing in ground effect aircraft (WIG) as they call it.



So weapon systems are only better if you have used them? The best weapons wouldn't be used at all most of the time because of their deterrent effect.



So the liquid metal nuclear reactors that the Soviets used operationally in their Alfa class nuclear subs were not ahead of the liquid metal reactors the US tested in a retired Sub? Being better on paper is no great achievement. Getting something operational is much harder than the paper design phase of design.
A good example would be the ANS the Germans and French were collaborating on. They wanted a missile that weighed about 800kg or less to fly a mach 2.5 for 50-70km to be used as an antiship missile. Propulsion was to be combined rocket ramjet. The project got nowhere. At the same time the Soviets had a similar project for an anti radiation missile. They saw the paper design of the ANS and added an anti ship requirement to their design, which was already completed. The Result was the Kh-31A, an anti ship missile based on the Kh-31P Anti radiation missile. Range against destroyer sized targets was 50km and its other figures match or better those planned for the ANS. Mach 3 flight speed, 610kg launch weight. The anti radiation version was in service before the ANS was cancelled and the Kh-31P was ready a year or two later.
Their experience with high speed anti ship missiles also led them to create KASHTAN-M with 2 x 30mm gatling guns and 32 x 10km range SAMs on one mount.

Russian naval technology is so crappy that India just ordered ANOTHER 3 Talwar class large frigates.


oh, and thank you Gaz.....:)

[GazB]

If Soviet naval eqiupment was so crappy then the US Navy would never have had to design and build F-14s, or AEGIS class cruisers or Sea wolf SSNs.

[Coop]

So because something is invented in the west it is not possible for say a Zubr class hovercraft to be better than a US LCAC?I never said that: this is your own assumption, based of obvious intention to ridicule.


You said the Soviets had nothing that was better than the west....I never said that either. I said (repeat): they were never in possession of superior technology.

Given you obviously have a problem to understand what you read, here (for the second time) the explanation. I've been talking about technology. So, for example, the Kiev-, Kirov-, Slava-class, subs known as Typhoon-, Oscar- etc. class, were all imposing designs, but none of them introduced any technology that would be superior to anything in the USN. Means: they were larger but not more advanced designs. It is the fielding of superior technology (just an example) like Aegis-system, or what the Swedes and other Nordic navies do with their super-fast stealth patrol boats and ships, that matters.

Correspondingly, all your jokes and the whole standpoint in your post are grotesque and flawed.


I guess Naval Aviation was a modest sized air fleet?Sigh... once again: I never said anything even roughly similar (or would you mind showing where?). This is again a very grotesque reaction of yours.

But, the Soviet Naval aviation was indeed much smaller and less powerful, and facing much more problems than usually explained. As such, there were no "hordes" of Bear and Backfire bombers threatening USN carriers, just few regiments - and these were to cover two oceans, while supported by almost nothing. And thus, seen from that aspect, systems like F-14/AWG-9/AIM-54, Aegis etc. were actually an overkill.


... and of course because the Soviets had no empire or sea line of communications to protect it was basically a coastal force.Of course it was. The emphasis of the Soviet Fleet development was no a major battle for control of sea lines, as so often implied by the NATO, but interdiction of CONUS-NATO lines and, even more so, defence of "bastions". Therefore, they did not need large carriers and corresponding tactical aircraft: they needed bombers that could hit British, German and some of French ports, or attack USN carrier battle groups moving up to Norway and attacking the Kola Peninsula.

For this reason, the Soviets could do with less complex machinery too.


You'd better tell the americans then. They are designing a very large transport ekranoplan, or wing in ground effect aircraft (WIG) as they call it.While you're so joyfully laughing about me, mind showing where did I say that this is a wrong/bad idea, please?

Besides, I clearly stated that at the time the Soviets were researching and developing ekranoplanes, nobody in the West did that. What is NOW going on is something else: if you failed to notice this, the USSR disoluted "just" some 15 years back...


So weapon systems are only better if you have used them?Never said that either. But, it is a matter of fact that most of weapons systems that do enter service are "better/more effective/more useful/....." whatever than those that are only tested or R+Ded but never enter service.


So the liquid metal nuclear reactors that the Soviets used operationally in their Alfa class nuclear subs were not ahead of the liquid metal reactors the US tested in a retired Sub?Obviously not. If nothing else, they were certainly not as safe, otherwise the Soviet Navy wouldn't have had as a horrendous record of incidents as it has had.


Being better on paper is no great achievement.You explain this to me? How about you go to explain this to all the lovers of Su-27XYZ-versions around?


Getting something operational is much harder than the paper design phase of design.Yes, but it must not mean that it is based on superior technology.


A good example would be the ANS the Germans and French were collaborating on. They wanted a missile that weighed about 800kg or less to fly a mach 2.5 for 50-70km to be used as an antiship missile. Propulsion was to be combined rocket ramjet. The project got nowhere. At the same time the Soviets had a similar project for an anti radiation missile. They saw the paper design of the ANS and added an anti ship requirement to their design, which was already completed. The Result was the Kh-31A, an anti ship missile based on the Kh-31P Anti radiation missile. Range against destroyer sized targets was 50km and its other figures match or better those planned for the ANS. Mach 3 flight speed, 610kg launch weight. The anti radiation version was in service before the ANS was cancelled and the Kh-31P was ready a year or two later.And, this should mean that the Cha-31P was based on "superior technology of Soviet origin"?

Or, what are you talking about here?

I'm, just asking... because it's technological superiority I'm talking about.

[Coop]

Russian naval technology is so crappy that India just ordered ANOTHER 3 Talwar class large frigates.Great to see I'm dealing with such an authority of endlessly immense knowledge on the topic of Soviet Navy, and ability to discuss in a civilized manner....

Well, whatever... Let's see what do the Indians say about their reasons for this order. From The Times of India (see: India to buy 3 more stealth frigates soon (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1523157.cms)):

Sources said Navy, which wants to maintain its present force-level of around 140 warships and submarines, is going in for "this import option" since the order books for the indigenous shipyards is "now full".

[TR1]

Great to see I'm dealing with such an authority of endlessly immense knowledge on the topic of Soviet Navy, and ability to discuss in a civilized manner....

Well, whatever... Let's see what do the Indians say about their reasons for this order. From The Times of India (see: India to buy 3 more stealth frigates soon (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1523157.cms)):

Sources said Navy, which wants to maintain its present force-level of around 140 warships and submarines, is going in for "this import option" since the order books for the indigenous shipyards is "now full". haha, whatever dude, India ordered another three because they were very impressed with the performance of the first batch.

and if you actually read the entire article:
The Navy, however, now simply loves these 4,000-tonne frigates due to the deadly punch they pack, with a wide array of sensor and weapon systems, including the 200-km-range 'Klub-N' cruise missiles. The next three frigates, incidentally, will also be armed with the 300-km range BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles.

of course India would like to be more self-reliant on weapons production, but their experience with these ships was excellent and that is the reason for bying 3 more.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

A 20,000 tonne Kirov against a 60,000 Iowa?

That’s a no contest. One hit from the 16inch guns and the Kirov is joining the Hood at the bottom of the Atlantic. You only have to look at Bismark, Yamato to see the sheer amount of damage a BB can withstand and still be in the fight before sinking. Needless to say unlike the Bismark and Yamato the Iowa’s have/had radar controlled gunnery for it’s 16 inch main guns which have ranges over 20 miles. And they have much better damage control systems enabling them to stay in the fight longer with more damage. As for the AA suite against missiles. Have you ever seen how much lead BB’s put up during WW2 against the Kamikaze’s? I’d hate to see what they can do now with radar controlled AA along with the Phalanx.

Apart from CVN’s. there is nothing afloat that can much the Iowa’s.

As for how good the Soviet/Russian Navy was/is. On paper it was very good. However it could not withstand a fleet engagement with the US let alone NATO. It was a navy better suited to a similar campaign as the WW1 and 2 German Navy. To be used for deterrence, attacks against the logistical chain and to keep the enemies fleet in one particular theatre ignoring other theatres.

[TR1]

A 20,000 tonne Kirov against a 60,000 Iowa?

That’s a no contest. One hit from the 16inch guns and the Kirov is joining the Hood at the bottom of the Atlantic. You only have to look at Bismark, Yamato to see the sheer amount of damage a BB can withstand and still be in the fight before sinking. Needless to say unlike the Bismark and Yamato the Iowa’s have/had radar controlled gunnery for it’s 16 inch main guns which have ranges over 20 miles. And they have much better damage control systems enabling them to stay in the fight longer with more damage. As for the AA suite against missiles. Have you ever seen how much lead BB’s put up during WW2 against the Kamikaze’s? I’d hate to see what they can do now with radar controlled AA along with the Phalanx.

Apart from CVN’s. there is nothing afloat that can much the Iowa’s.

As for how good the Soviet/Russian Navy was/is. On paper it was very good. However it could not withstand a fleet engagement with the US let alone NATO. It was a navy better suited to a similar campaign as the WW1 and 2 German Navy. To be used for deterrence, attacks against the logistical chain and to keep the enemies fleet in one particular theatre ignoring other theatres.
you really think the Kirov would stand no chance against an Iowa? I completely disagree- not only a Kirov, but a Sovremmeney or a Ticonderoga would take out an Iowa no problem. The Kirov is armed with 20 supersonic Shipwrecks (conventionally armed obviosly, a nuclear tipped one could take out an entire group of ships)- if they were all fired at one Iowa from a range that far outdoes the 20 mile guns, that ship will become a burning hunk of steel very quickly.

The accuracy of the Shipwrecks (not to speak of the destructive power and range) is much better than the 16-inchers ..I would think for anti-ship duties the Haproons and Tomahawks would be the Iowa's best weapons.

[Seiyuuki]

you really think the Kirov would stand no chance against an Iowa? I completely disagree- not only a Kirov, but a Sovremmeney or a Ticonderoga would take out an Iowa no problem. The Kirov is armed with 20 supersonic Shipwrecks (conventionally armed obviosly, a nuclear tipped one could take out an entire group of ships)- if they were all fired at one Iowa from a range that far outdoes the 20 mile guns, that ship will become a burning hunk of steel very quickly.

The accuracy of the Shipwrecks (not to speak of the destructive power and range) is much better than the 16-inchers ..I would think for anti-ship duties the Haproons and Tomahawks would be the Iowa's best weapons.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bb-61-8505379.jpg

It is, eight quad Tomahawk armored box launchers (32) and four quad Harpoon cell launchers (16). When you're going for the swarm effect, it then just become a matter of who find who first and who get off the first volley.

[Coop]

haha, whatever dude, India ordered another three because they were very impressed with the performance of the first batch.

and if you actually read the entire article:
The Navy, however, now simply loves these 4,000-tonne frigates due to the deadly punch they pack, with a wide array of sensor and weapon systems, including the 200-km-range 'Klub-N' cruise missiles. The next three frigates, incidentally, will also be armed with the 300-km range BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles.

of course India would like to be more self-reliant on weapons production, but their experience with these ships was excellent and that is the reason for bying 3 more.Sigh... :rolleyes:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/d-talwar.htm

Citate:
As many as three more project 1135 frigates were under negotiation between Indians and Russians. However, plans to acquire another three vessels of the class are unlikely to be realized, as priority is being given to construction in India of the indigenous Project 17 Class frigates. Ministry concluded a contract in November 1997 with a Russian firm for supply of three modern frigates to the Indian Navy at Rs 3,040 crore. The first frigate, INS Talwar was to be delivered in May 2002, the second INS Trishul in November 2002 and the third INS Tabar in May 2003.

So, if there were no plans to obtain additional "frigates" (actually destroyers) of Talwar class from Russia, and there was intention to instead pursue the P17-class, built in Indian shipyards - then the reason that additional Talwars were ordered in Russia after all should be something else but that Indian shipyards are too occupied for years in advance, huh?

BTW, what you missed as well is the fact that the design of these ships is not "Soviet", but they were designed in cooperation between Russia and India, with plenty of Western know-how and technology (including computer software required for designing "stealth" ships). Means: this is not only OT any way, but also nothing that would even imply any kind of technological superiority on the part of the Soviet Navy....


The accuracy of the Shipwrecks (not to speak of the destructive power and range) is much better than the 16-inchers ..I would think for anti-ship duties the Haproons and Tomahawks would be the Iowa's best weapons.Not that it would matter a lot, as the mod-Iowas and Kirovs were designed for fighting completely different kind of battles...but, mind explaining what makes Shipwrecks "more accurate" than 406mm shells from Iowas, and what kind of evidence can you provide in support of your statement?

[TR1]

Not that it would matter a lot, as the mod-Iowas and Kirovs were designed for fighting completely different kind of battles...but, mind explaining what makes Shipwrecks "more accurate" than 406mm shells from Iowas, and what kind of evidence can you provide in support of your statement?
true, the purpose of the Iowa's and the Kirov's is completely different.
Regarding the accuracy of the Shipwreck- it is a late generation Soviet cruise missles, of the same generation as the Sunburn, although with considerably more raneg and destructive power. Now, during the Peace Mission 2005 excersise with China and Russia the Chinese Sovremmeny's (which, by the way are a complete Soviet design) fired a number of sunburns at targets and reported 100 % accuracy. I assume that the Shipwreck has somewhat similar performance.

Are you saying the 16 inchers from the Iowa can hit a moving ship every time they fire?

and regarding the backwardness of Soviet naval technology: Was it not the Kashin class of warships which first used gas turbines?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Wether the 16 inch guns can hit everytime is mute anyway. The simple fact is that even IF a single missile can hit the Iowa, 1 missile is not going to sink the ship. And you mentioned the russians would use nukes to wipe out such a asset. Read up on the nuclear testing conducted in the pacific and see how well Japanese/German Cruisers and BB’s handled nuke explosions in close proximity. The Prinze Eugen was still in working combat condition after a few tests and was only finally sunk because the radiation was to much for safe handling.

Modern Vessels by comparison are not designed for prolonged fleet engagements. For some reason and I can not fathom it. The Falkland Islands is a good case in point in how weak modern vessels are. It’s all fine and good to have these fancy new age missiles. But if the delivery platform can be disabled by a single hit then it kind of makes it a pointless exercise.

I can understand how with the advent of airpower that naval vessels have become somewhat redundant but the fact remains. BB’s are designed to be hit. Designed to be pulverised, designed to become flaming wrecks. But flaming wrecks that can still shoot.

[TR1]

Wether the 16 inch guns can hit everytime is mute anyway. The simple fact is that even IF a single missile can hit the Iowa, 1 missile is not going to sink the ship. And you mentioned the russians would use nukes to wipe out such a asset. Read up on the nuclear testing conducted in the pacific and see how well Japanese/German Cruisers and BB’s handled nuke explosions in close proximity. The Prinze Eugen was still in working combat condition after a few tests and was only finally sunk because the radiation was to much for safe handling.

Modern Vessels by comparison are not designed for prolonged fleet engagements. For some reason and I can not fathom it. The Falkland Islands is a good case in point in how weak modern vessels are. It’s all fine and good to have these fancy new age missiles. But if the delivery platform can be disabled by a single hit then it kind of makes it a pointless exercise.

I can understand how with the advent of airpower that naval vessels have become somewhat redundant but the fact remains. BB’s are designed to be hit. Designed to be pulverised, designed to become flaming wrecks. But flaming wrecks that can still shoot.

now that is a test I would like to see - a Iowa being hit by a modern anti-ship missiles of the Shipwreck or Sunburn class..or by something smaller in the Harpoon class.

[Coop]

Regarding the accuracy of the Shipwreck- it is a late generation Soviet cruise missles, of the same generation as the Sunburn, although with considerably more raneg and destructive power.Sorry, this is not an answer that is going to satisfy me.

I'm asking for what kind of evidence can you provide to support your statements about their effectiveness?


Now, during the Peace Mission 2005 excersise with China and Russia the Chinese Sovremmeny's (which, by the way are a complete Soviet design) fired a number of sunburns at targets and reported 100 % accuracy. I assume that the Shipwreck has somewhat similar performance.So, you "assume"? What kind of proof for your assumption can you provide?

What kind of report about "Peace Mission 2005" do you have that would explicitly state something of what you say?


Are you saying the 16 inchers from the Iowa can hit a moving ship every time they fire?No, I never said that. I'm asking you for proofs/evidence - any kind of valid basis - for your insistence that "Shipwrecks" and similar weapons are as precise and as deadly as you explain.


and regarding the backwardness of Soviet naval technology: Was it not the Kashin class of warships which first used gas turbines?The first gas turbines were developed by Metropolitan-Vickers, already back in 1943, and used to propell Royal Navy warships from 1947 onwards.

Besides, again: Was the technology of Kashin-class' gas turbines more advanced than that of gas turbines mounted in western warships?

[Brute]

.
But, in summary, no Soviet naval system was ever ahead of comparative Western technology.






Read my post more carefully: this does not mean that such crude and obsolete technology (and, even more so: countermeasures against it) wasn't available in the West. The Western navies intended to fight well-supported by air; Soviets had to compensate for their lack of air support. That's why they were building high-speed cruise missiles.

Technology well-known in the West, and not introduced because of its inherent instability (as illustrated by a catastrophic accident of a certain nuclear-powered sub, three years back).


Coop, just wanted to stop by and tell you that you continue to be so full of sh*t.
As always.

I would advise everyone to stop arguing with this biased dummy. It's of no use. He'll remain clueless and arrogant no matter what you try to do.