Talking bollocks thread #2

Sure they wanted the Mistral but the mistral's did not have Anti ship, Anti-air or Anti- sub missiles and it could only launch choppers because at this time Russian does not have a functional VTOL to put on it.

They didn't design the Mistral... if they did it would have had a UKSK launcher and probably much more substantial anti air/sub/ship capabilities. (note UKSK launchers allow land attack, anti ship, and anti sub options in one launcher).

It was a helicopter carrier and was never intended for STOVL use... at 20,000 tons it was never intended as a fixed wing aircraft carrier.

And again not really multi-role, they could not really kill surface ships, they could not use their aircraft offensively well, the best thing the Kiev could do was have the planes pot shot at the Carrier group. The Kiev's planes had no airbrone radar they would have been slaughtered by a Carriers fighters which would have had more than enough time to sortie them against the Yak's of that era. They had a couple of Anti ship missiles not enough to threaten anything really that had AA defenses.

The last Kiev class ship had 16 Supersonic Shipwreck anti ship missiles which would have seriously challenged the defences of any 1970s carrier group.

I mean in 1982 exocet was sinking british ships armed with seawolf and sea dart... on paper both of those were able to defeat subsonic anti ship missiles... when an American AEGIS class cruiser shot down a civilian airliner from Iranian waters it took them 90 seconds to launch their STANDARD SAM because of a fault... if it had been a real aggressor... just one... they would have been in serious trouble.

The Kiev was built to protect the subs and act has air cover.

Same as the Kuznetsov and the new CVN they are talking about.

Mistral is a landing vessel for humanitarian disaster relief and also landing operations... it would operate with a fixed wing carrier supporting it like the Kuznetsov.

Multi-role vessel does not mean strapping everything under the sun onto ONE SHIP. You are blind, I am talking in facts and I am trying to be nice and educate you, that the design you propose will not work, again you CANNOT strap everything onto one hull and expect it to work well they would have to make the helio carriers hull MASSIVe to accommodate for all of that we are talking well excess of 80k tons and then nevermind all the mechanical issues it would suffer.

Perhaps you should listen more and preach less then.

I am not suggesting making the Mistral a super multirole do everything... I am suggesting that a Mistral class vessel has lots of sensors and helicopters and is a command centre but could also perform humanitarian missions with its 200 bed hospital and its transport helos and land vehicles (trucks and the like) as well as the landing vessels to deliver said trucks and vehicles... it would be handy in island groups like Indonesia or Fiji or coastal africa, asia, or central or south america.

A converted Delta class SSBN with 150 tubes of cruise missiles and another Delta class SSBN with 150 tubes for large SAMs able to carry quad or larger loads of smaller missiles in each tube, could operate with that helicopter carrier... the helicopter carrier provides the sensors and command and communications role, while the two subs provide the fire power for both attack and defence... for hundreds of anti aircraft missiles and hundreds of land attack cruise missiles or anti ship missiles or anti sub missiles...

The Gorsh frigate is considered Multi-role for them THAT is a multi-role ship, one that can attack land, sea, air, subs and other ships.

It is merely the presence of UKSK launchers and medium and long range SAM launch tubes that makes it so... the combination of sonar on the subs and radar on the Mistral means all it needs is to remove those SLBMs and replace them with UKSK and SAMs to get something multirole and mobile.

Yasen are purpose built SSGNs, there is no rationale converting old, relatively noisy and with little to no life spared in the hulls like the Deltas to such a role.

The Delta IVs are hardly old boats... and who cares if they are noisy... in land attack mode you could launch 150 x 5,500km range land attack cruise missiles from the south atlantic at Europe or the US... or from the south pacific with 150 x nuclear powered unlimited range cruise missiles...

A single Delta IV, as a bench test, could be converted when and if being phased out there shall still life left in the hull.

Why just a single hull?

This is a new thing... but it does not need an expensive new super quiet sub to base it around... hell you could probably do it to a Sierra sub or an Oscar if you wanted.

That assuming SSBNs total numbers won't need to be increased by then.

8 x SSBNs are plenty... they wont need any more for a while unless they want to massively increase their warhead numbers.

The new start treaty doesn't last forever and so when it has expired they can have as many warheads as they want... I suspect they will expand their arsenal, but only to try to force the US to include all nuclear armed powers in the limitations agreement.

And when such SSBN will have less than a decade left of life in its hull, and would be helplessly outdated, it will be a waste of time and money.

The alteration costs will be minimal... it will be useless as an SSBN, but perfectly adequate for an SSGN with the mission of land attack.

Soviet and Russian SSGNs in the past were purely anti carrier, and nothing else... by having a few arsenal ships they can retain that anti ship focus... perhaps with a couple of land attack missiles just for shits and giggles.

The whole of Delta IVs won't be far better than the IIIs: it would be good to pick one to experiment with it, but such a conversion needs modern hulls, modern equipment, a long lasting logistic support.

What are you talking about?

All they need is lots of room... check
Lots of endurance... check
the ability to sail off to far away places and lurk for long periods... check
communications systems to receive orders for launch at a moments notice... check

The vertical launch tubes are sealed and would not need maintainence or attention during the voyage so they would need less crew than an SLBM.

It would be a case of "go to this area" and Lurk for 2 months and then go here and lurk for another 2 months and then go here for 2 more months and then come home and change the crew...

For the west it will be a nightmare trying to keep tabs on where they are at any given time and keeping forces that can track them tracking them all the time... most western anti sub forces are not all nuclear powered so they can't continuously follow something for 6 months without break into the southern oceans... it will cost the west a fortune in new anti sub vessels and monitoring... ironically for Russia the western arsenal ships/subs just means they have to keep more of a look out for low flying subsonic cruise missiles in larger bunches... they don't need to care about the southern oceans because SLCMs couldn't reach them from there... the new nuclear powered cruise missiles the Russians now have can...

As soo Deltas, all of them, will stop serving as SSBNs, their logistic support chain will disappear in a hurry.

Cannibalizing hulls, it would be possible to get one operational a little longer as an experimental unit, but even that won't last as much as a permanent conversion would require.

Except that is wrong... the Delta IIIs are not gone... they have one that was adapted into a mother ship for small submarines.

Delta IVs could remain operational for decades to come... they would not be that effective as SSBNs but in the arsenal role they are not being used as SSBNs.

You could argue that if the Delta IV is too old and crappy for continued use then the Ohio class are worse... and of course they are not.

And hulls are fine, navy chief said as much, only reason for decommission them is noise, that's it

More specifically their noise makes them no use as SSBNs... as arsenal ships they are fine as you point out in your next comment.

Noise is a problem if you want to send them attack land targets because limited range of cruise missile will mean you need to send them near the shores alone.

their longest range conventional cruise missile is the Kh-101/102 series with a 5,500km range, which should be plenty... draw a 5,500km radius around the target and most of the time there is either plenty of sea to hide in, or a country between the target and the sea which would be even better... as long as that country doesn't notice your missile.

If you want an arsenal ship in a task force better go with a big container ship with lot of uksk. Far more cheaper and easier to operate.

Sort of gives away the fact that you are about to launch lots of missiles... and probably not that much cheaper because who will let you refuel in their port... certainly not any EU or NATO port because obviously you are killing freedom fighters with those missiles...

Until now, nobody in the world, and in History, has ever favoured SSGNs over SSBNs.

Nobody never.

Russia never had precision land attack capability before from a naval missile that was not nuclear armed...

Now that they do are they going to change all their SSGNs from the anti carrier role to the land attack role?

And most of the SSGNs only have 32 launch tubes... not bad if they are armed with mach 8 Zircon anti ship missiles, but not great if the targets are all over the place in some African country... corvettes in Syria launched groups of up to 26 missiles at once... if that was a SSGN it would have to head home to reload after that one attack...

The conflict in Syria has shown Russia what a useful weapon a land attack cruise missile is, but it also shows it in some cases it will need quite a lot concentrated in one place to be useful... as more ships and subs enter service and all of them have UKSK tubes the problem will become less, but there will always be use for an arsenal ship to support attacks in a conflict especially a long way from Russia.

If they are already built in the form of an SSBN all the better because such vessels are already designed for long period missions and with reduced crew they will probably eat better too.

SSBNs no good as SSBNs anymore can be arsenal ships in peace time and in times of tension they can be loaded up with unlimited range revenge cruise missiles to greatly complicate the problems the west has... it is funny... NATO has closed in on Russias borders and Russia is half encircled, but an arsenal sub or 4 in the south pacific or south atlantic or indian ocean threatens the under belly of the west... US and Europe... and not in an expensive way either...

I would put my money on forst Boreys being, if ever it would be the case, coverted to a SSGN role only because being replaced by more modern and updated Borey B in the SSBN role.

They already have SSGNs... what they need are arsenal subs... which is not the same thing... arsenal ships are primarily loaded with land attack cruise missiles, not anti carrier missiles.

The SSGNs will be largely equipped with anti ship and anti sub missiles... with 72 missiles an upgraded oscar might have a couple of land attack missiles, but most will be anti carrier Zircons.

The US converted four Ohio, they never conceived to pick up some rusty Benjam Franklin.

Seems you don't know much about subs... Delta IVs are from the same period as Ohios... the Delta IVs built from 1981 to 1992... the Ohios... the first boat finished testing in october 1981...

If you modify a SSBN into a SSGN, it will become a SSGN, period.

Not in Russian service, because in Russian service an SSGN hunts US carrier groups and NATO surface action groups with or without carrier support.

A modified Russian SSBN fitted and loaded with land attack cruise missiles would be designated an SSGN but would be used for rather different missions with different weapon loadouts as mentioned above.

Keeping operational an old nuclear boat has costs close or even larger than those of a new boat.

Bullshit... if that were true how can they possibly afford to keep one Akula Class (Typhoon) for testing SLBMs, plus several Delta III, plus about 6 Delta IVs in service right now in addition to the Boreis as they enter service?

SSBNs are designed to operate for very long periods but improvements in technology mean they have to be replaced because the ability to hear them improves faster than the ability to upgrade them to make them quieter and eventually you have to start again with a new quieter design... hense version 4 of the Delta needs to be replaced by Borei number one and soon two.

That does not apply if you have a use for them that values their large size and long operational deployment design and does not care about a little extra noise... they could run around the planet at 20 knots making all sorts of noise for 6 months... what western ASW group could manage to keep up with that?

When it is needed... where ever... it will get a coded signal and then slow down and manouver to the place it needs to be and perform its mission... who knows where...

Does it offer any advantage to spend money to modify and operate an old SSBN into a SSGN, over either build a brand new SSGN or a SSBN, depending what is more needed between the two types?

99% of times, the answer is quite easy and straightforward: no.

A new SSBN is more use as an SSBN than as an Arsenal sub... and modern SSGNs don't really have the capacity to carry enough missiles to be really considered an arsenal sub... the only exception would be the Oscar and Oscar II classes... 72 missiles is a useful amount, but the deltas could carry rather more... ironically the oscars entered service in the early 1980s so your argument that the Delta IVs are too old should apply to the Oscars too I guess.

Did I say russia designed the Mistral? I said no such thing All I said was it didn't have certain weapons when you brought it up.

Weapons it didn't have because it was a frog designed ship and not a Russian designed ship... all new Russian ships are multirole and have air defence missiles and land attack missiles and anti ship missiles and anti sub missiles... as I said but you seem to want to ignore.

16 missiles no it had 12 you don't even know the specs but you are arguing with me priceless, Soviet missiles of that era were also inaccurate really.

Hilarious... you finally actually look up figures and then come with the Soviet missiles were inaccurate really... really?

12 missiles means twelve sunk US ships... they had nothing that could even look like stopping such missiles... except denial.

They relied upon Salvo's from many ships to penetrate an AC Group and hit, 12 missiles alone would have done jack shit.

Actually four of them would have been hiroshima power weapons and on their own obliterated the entire carrier group.

you can pretend soviet Anti-ship missiles had the precision of lasers but they didn't back then no country US and Russia included had a missile that had a high hit rate.

HAhahahaha... yeah... lets compare anti ship missiles with long range air to air missiles... ask the jews about the ship they lost from a subsonic rocket powered Soviet missile... I am sure they had to have guys on deck with flags waving it in to get a hit.

1. Some will miss.
2. Some will be intercepted.
3. Some will manage to penetrate the AA defenses of the group and strike their target.

The US had nothing in service that could intercept those missiles...

The kuz more built to be a proper AC the planes were made especially so it could carry out carrier ops albeit limited. Yes it's main job was to protect surface groups with it's aircraft but if needed it would perform in a strike situation.

Yeah... those missiles were so useless they still put 12 on the Kuznetsov to attack US ships with... the Su-33s were never fitted with any long range anti ship weapon and carried only air to air weapons and dumb bombs and rockets.

they clearly knew they only needed 12... Granits instead of course. Nothing like an inaccurate mach 2, 7 ton missile.

the kuz was also meant to serve as a stop gap until they finished their first true carrier.

So they can't afford new carriers but that can afford not true carriers... you are funny...

You do realize....that's what the French built them for right? wut......? that is literally the entire point of those ships and that's not what you said do not like. You stated Russia should buil da mistral with all those weapons but hey that's okay pretend you didn't.

The Russians wont build Mistrals... they will build a version of the Mistral that suits them better... it will at the very least have Panstir on it and also UKSK launchers... at least one, probably 2 but just to make it more useful in different mixes of vessels.

Delta IV are the last iteration of a project born in the 60ies, I would not compare it to the Ohio.

It is going to be an arsenal sub... it does not matter if it is not brand new... if it was an arsenal ship they could use a container ship for all it matters.

And if are sending a SSGN loaded with over 100 cruise missiles, maybe even nuclear tipped, to target USA and Europe, you will be better being very very quiet.

If you are using the arsenal ship against the west for WWIII they will be using unlimited range cruise missiles that can be launched from under the arctic ice or from the south pole... they don't need to be quiet at all because there wont be anyone there to hear them...

Or if there are it will be NATO ASW groups... which are expensive and will be taken away from SSBNs and SSGNs on more important and more urgent missions...

So ticks both boxes.

Even commiting only 50% of those to counter russian SSBNs and SSGNs, it would make 2 SSNs chasing any single russian SSBN or SSGN.

that will keep them nice and busy wont it... that will cost the west a lot of money and resources to keep those forces at sea chasing their tails on the off chance they might be needed... good.

For the conversion cost that is real value for money.

For the very same reason, I doubt Russia will stop to 8 SSBNs, it will be better and safer to have some additional boomer on patrol, even with single nuclear warhead missiles, for the sake of resiliency against enemy's hunt for them.

They don't need to leave Russian waters to launch their missiles... they will be safe enough... certainly long enough to launch their missiles... didn't a Soviet sub scare NATO by salvo launching all its missiles in less time than it would take to attack them with torpedoes and sink them...

A Delta IV is today barely enough as a SSBN, in a decade it will become useless, and there is no point to further SLEP a small fleet of Delta IVs to convert them in SSGNs.

A Delta IV is obsolete as an SSBN today and upgrading it to be an SSBN in the future is a total waste of resources.

Modifying a mature design to greatly complicate Americas and NATOs global domination planes for a modest cost that could be useful in foreign interventions around the world in a responsive package is just good use of available resources... recycling at its best... I know you don't approve... much better to build from scratch a multi billion dollar SSBN and then modify it for the role... I disagree.

BTW they have already modified a Delta III for the mother sub role... I guess that was pretty dumb too?

They already have everything they need for nuclear war (it's common knowledge), this OTOH is for conventional low priority stuff

But the potential to cause alarm in the west and demands for new ASW aircraft and ships would be fun... not to mention it is probably the most expensive thing you can spend money on in the military... to properly deal with the problem would cost them more than their ABM games... and all for the cost of a few modified old boomers.

I remember in the 1980s they were using Yankee class boomers still... very unsafe but what they had at short notice...

12 missiles don't mean 12 sunk carriers that is fanboy logic talking, and that comment alone is beyond stupid. Seriously, all you are doing is showing me how much you Bs for Russia at this point you are incapable of accepting reality it seems. That's how fanboys are really....so it doesn't shock me.

I said 12 missiles means 12 sunk US ships... are all US ships aircraft carriers? Or are you a person that thinks a huge supersonic missile designed to destroy ships would not sink the Pacific Princess with one shot...

No they won't not all russian ships will have all of that it's cute you think so, you and Enhiee would get along really it seems your both utterly delusional.
s

OK then expert... list all the new combat ships over 2,000 tons Russia is building or planning with no UKSK launcher... shouldn't take long, because combat precludes research ships and Elint/recon platforms... and speed boats... but I will give you a hint that the U in UKSK is universal... perhaps you could look up the definition of that word first.

Hm no they would not have the missiles could not destroy an entire carrier group with only four missiles like my head hurts reading this sentence are you batshit insane?.

Yeah... of course... the invincible US Navy... even four hits with 20Kt nuclear warheads wont sink a single vessel... who was the fanatic again?

A missile got lucky big deal, also Jews?........ahuh so you are like that. Ah......you need to be removed from your position at this point.

It was Israeli... which makes it a Zionist Jew platform... that is relevant because generally they knew what they were doing when they started their terrorist campaign to create israel and then after israel was created they showed great skill in murdering anyone who questioned their right to create a new country that never existed in the past but was somehow their by right now.

To further clarify, I mention the success with an inaccurate old Soviet missile against a respectable navy, to show luck and skill and a certain technological level was needed for the kill... if they launched thousands in one attack and one hit then I agree that would just be luck or simply overwhelming formidible defences... but it was not... they didn't even launch 12.

You really going to suggest these inaccurate soviet missiles could get lucky like that?

I am sure it was the same luck that the Serbs shot down an F-117... or was that engine trouble?

Those 12 missiles alone were useless yes, with a group of other ships no they weren't the kuz would never have been alone,

Amazing that even today there is no evidence any individual or group of ships could shoot down 12 supersonic missiles coming at them at one time... let alone selectively shoot down the four armed with nuclear warheads before they detonated... if 12 were useless how many would they actually need... millions I am sure for your US strong fanboi imagination and even then most will fail to launch because their design is flawed by being really copies of WWII German V-2 rockets... just like all Soviet weapons...

So shut up again your lack of understanding is amazing and the SU-33's, I said strike missiles meaning air to ground, not attacking other ships.

You said shut up... you said strike missiles meaning air to ground, but not for attacking ships...

Well first of all I wont shut up.

Second as I stated, the Su-33 was cleared for Air to Air missiles, Dumb bombs and Unguided rockets... the only missile ever shown with the Su-33 that was cleared for use was the Kh-31 in the form of the anti ship missile... it didn't have and was never cleared for any guided air to ground as in solid ground missiles.

The only air to ground guided missiles it could use were anti ship models of the Kh-31.

The new upgraded aircraft might be able to carry R-77s a new AAMs but as far as I know it has not added any air to ground weapon.

They planned two aircraft with rather more extensive air to ground performance with all sorts of guided missiles and bombs... one was called MiG-29KR, and the other was the Su-33KUB... and only one of those entered service after about 2015 or so... when the Indians ordered theirs.

Do you understand?

BTW I have been through this reply a couple of times to take the swear words and the personal insults out... I hope you appreciate that.

So congrats Garry you just confirmed to me you don't know wtf you are talking about, just another fanboy who reads shit on the web and thinks he has a dam clue.

I would suggest you take the time to do the same to your own posts, or you might get a time out.

Perhaps you might take a look at yourself and think perhaps first of all I am interested in Russian and Soviet equipment and don't really give a shit about american and western weapons, but you clearly don't know as much as you seem to think you do about the Russians and Soviets.

Don't take that too hard, most western intel agencies seem to be even more clueless... at least you are still talking...