Talking bollocks thread #3

You're a retard.

I suggest you have a cup of tea and a sit down yourself... it is not acceptable to abuse another member this way.

I have not received any complaints about this, but he has every right to an opinion that is different from yours.

An arm or a leg might be a very very useful appendage but once gangrene sets in it is better to lose the limb than your life.

Right now Belarus is not the lifeblood of Russia... the reverse is not true... but doesn't matter if they don't see that themselves.

Right now Belarus is an important ally and friend, but Luka is a power crazed idiot that is no ally of Russia till the alternative is pointed out to him in blood.

As pointed out above... he is not interested in cooperation and unification with Russia... he is a tick on the ass of a cow gorging on rich nutritious blood... but not really doing the cow much good at all.

Such a selfish partner is worse than no partner at all... it is not the 1940s... HATO putting tanks and planes closer to Russias borders means they will just be easier to pick off with nuclear weapons as they form up for their attack... the explosions will happen in Belarus and Ukraine instead of Poland and Hungary , but the results will be the same and the radiation will move west...

The bollocks is going to the appropriate thread...

has anyone found anything to indicate if the TU-160 can supercruise?

I don't think it can...

Perhaps with new upgraded engines, but probably not at full weight...

I seem to remember the F-14A having flaky engines but the F-14D got new engines that generated as much thrust in dry power as the old engines generated in full AB so the F-14D could take off from an aircraft carrier without AB.... with its swing wing I think supercruising could be an option perhaps... a modern version with lightweight composite materials and lighter avionics would be rather impressive even today.

Today, F-14s would be useless against Tu-22M3 /95MS/160M2s armed with Kinzhals or other LR AShMs.

It could fly further and faster with more weapons than either of its replacements, and can use long range AAMs.

How far can it travel at supersonic.

My understanding is that with a strategic payload (ie about 28 tons) it has a flight radius of about 10,000km with 1,000km each way at high speed... ie it flys 4,000km to approach enemy airspace and then accelerates to supersonic for 1,000km in and 1,000km out and then subsonic for the 4,000km back.

If Tupolevs are attacking US carriers then they wont be Blackjacks... Blackjacks and Bears will be very busy doing other things... Backfires have a mission radius of about 4,000km, which becomes a mission radius of about 2,000km at supersonic speeds.

These aircraft flying fast can be detected from 5,000km away or more so the ships under attack will have plenty of warning the enemy bombers are inbound and they can launch interceptor fighters... if they launch nothing then the ships are on their own... if they launch interceptors your aircraft can start engaging incoming aircraft and missiles from about 1,000km out... which means any attacking force starts taking casualties from about 1,300km distance from the target which is the aircraft carrier... as soon as those interceptors start launching AAMs at the bombers and missiles more Interceptors will be launching from the carriers... those interceptors and missiles and guns and could shoot down any bombers they come across.

In their original state they would struggle to shoot down Kh-32s at 40km altitude moving at mach 5, but Kh-22M moved at about Mach 3 and 22km altitude which would be reachable for Phoenix missiles of the time.

Newer hypersonic missiles will be tougher but they can certainly take potshots as they blew past and at about 500km range the next wave of interceptors could have another bash at intercepting them.

Once they get close to the ships there are Standard SAM... which in my very biased anti US opinion are the only decent SAMs they operate that is part of an IADS called AEGIS that has any chance at all of stopping a missile attack.

Without carriers they would lose even more ships, but right now manouvering scramjet powered very high speed missiles are a threat, but over time and experience these problems can be solved too... launch a ballistic Standard 6 missile with a high energy nuclear warhead in the path of any Chinese anti ship ballistic missile, and send them a message that if they launch another weapon at a US ship US forces in the region will launch an IRBM and hit a Chinese city....

I doubt that a nuclear warhead would fit on this size missile

They put nuclear warheads in 152mm artillery shells weighing about 40kgs, why do you think it would be a problem putting a slightly bigger warhead in such a missile.

A 65kg HE warhead takes up a bit of space... a bit of volume... because HE is not as heavy or as dense as metal so the room a 65kg HE warhead takes up could be replaced by an 80kg nuclear warhead of about 50 Kilotons....

What tracking radar can detect bombers at 5000 KM? OTH? If so how do you discern intent at 5000 km.

The US has monitoring stations in most of the countries that border Russia and of course satellites and other spy aircraft not attached to the carrier group will always be watching.

Soviet radar in the Soviet Union tracked SR-71s flying over Vietnam... aircraft flying high and fast are easy to spot.

Also the opposition can launch attack waves so your planes are on fumes, approach, turn back when the defence is launched, pick up fuel from tankers and then supersonic dash back in to the 1000 KM radius to launch.

The average US aircraft carrier has more than 12 fighters on board at any one time... flying planes out to 1,000km patrol areas guarding the directions Russian attack bombers can come from is not hard. They can cycle the number of aircraft in the air...

If the F18E is gonna do an intercept at 1000KM its going to be loaded with fuel and still relying on buddy tankers to get it home. We are talking about the very edge of operational capability.

For the F-18 yes, for the F-14D no. That is what I am talking about. They are dumbing down their fighters for no obvious reason... they could have operated a navalised F-22 type fighter if they wanted... the Russians will likely use a naval Su-57... why would they not?

It will have no time on station at all.

Defending its carrier group it will be launching missiles and turning and heading home to rearm and refuel to do it again.

Also at that range they will have very limited use of afterburners.

Why would they need afterburners.... the targets are likely coming towards them at very high speed anyway...

the TU-22 can be accompanied by tankers out to about 1500 km to target. They top up tanks, full afterburner approach, once in launch radius burners off, weapons release, burners on and dash back to tankers for gas.

Except one minor problem... Tu-22M3s don't have inflight refuelling capability, and F-18s do, so if one party is using inflight refuelling resources to extend range it will be the Americans.

Its well nigh impossible to defend against such an attack with the current and proposed fighters on US carriers.

You are not listening.

Carrier based fighters don't make US carriers and US carrier groups invincible, there will be a lot of weapons they will have serious trouble dealing with... in fact a good version of Zircon to develop would be one that hunts down AWACS aircraft, because taking down a carriers AWACS planes breaks their IADS and makes it less effective and less well able to coordinate the air defence.

Aircraft carriers don't make a group of ships weaker, they make it much more powerful and safer from enemy attack.

Are you suggesting that land based airfields are too vulnerable and every country on the planet should just have Armies and not Air Forces because SAMs will shoot down all the planes... it is just as stupid as saying MANPADS and ATGMS mean helicopters and tanks are stupid and obsolete too.

The fact is that big ships are vulnerable to new very high speed missiles, but big ships are also the best defended ships any navy has... it would be vastly easier to overwhelm a modern corvette than a cold war cruiser... so a modern cruiser is going to be even harder to sink than a dozen corvettes... and a hell of a lot more useful too.

TU-22s are getting refuelling probes.

Only the 60 odd upgraded Tu-22M3Ms, and they barely have enough inflight refuelling planes to support their strategic bombers... they won't have enough for naval attack planes as well.

Even if the carrier has 50-60 fighters maintaining a patrol 1000 KM distant is a massive strain on their resources about 2/3 of the planes will be hauling fuel.

It is their job. It is what they are for.

The TU-22 can also approach low, they will be difficult to spot even with OTH radar in some areas, and their intentions will not be clear until they get within about 2000 KM.

Approaching low means approaching subsonic, and the US has radar stations around the world in all sorts of countrys as well as satellite coverage...

If the carriers are within 2000 KM if a Russian base in a conflict they are playing with fire for sure. The F-14 is dead and even its combat radius is listed at around 890km.

When they had F-14Ds, they also had S-3 Viking inflight refuelling aircraft...

Sure a carrier is hard to sink, but I doubt it would be operational after a single KH-32 hit...maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.

An aircraft carrier is not on its own. It increases the defence of any surface group of ships it operates with.

It is not invulnerable.... BECAUSE NOTHING IS.

Air fields can be made operational much, much more quickly then a carrier. Comparing the 2 is not reasonable. Airfields really need a runway to launch and recover planes, and fuel and weapons. Even if those are hit they can be replaced much more easily then a carriers systems. Days vs months.

An aircraft carrier is mobile so you can take it with the ships it is supposed to be protecting. Who cares if you can just fill in the dirt on a runway in Russia... it is still useless defending Russian ships in the Pacific Ocean or Indian Ocean.

If carriers are big easy targets then all airfields are too. Moscow is a big easy target... Russia needs to spread its population out into small communities of 500 people or less and then the west will never be able to defeat the with a nuclear weapon attack... except if they did do that then there would be nothing left to defeat, because just like not building aircraft carriers and cruisers and other ships of worth... having a fleet of all corvettes would be bloody useless so they wouldn't even bother trying to defeat you... you would have nothing worth defeating... they could just set up blockades around the world around all your economic trade partners and starve and isolate you with impunity. Why would Venezuela trade with a country that can't come and help them? Less risky to just trade with China.

They traded the capability of the F-14 for more F-18s because the premise of the F-14 was no longer viable.

They went for a smaller lighter and more expensive fighter plane with shorter range and slower flight speed. There were plenty of upgrades for the Tomcat that could have made it much cheaper and much more sophisticated.

When they withdrew the Intruder aircraft from service they upgraded the F-14 to attack ground targets... they added LANTIRN pods and this system:

Some F-14Ds were upgraded in 2005 with a ROVER III Full Motion Video (FMV) downlink, a system that transmits real-time images from the aircraft's sensors to the laptop of Forward air controller (FAC) on the ground...

So the plane flying over the target area sent a real time image of radar and thermal imaging views of the area around the forward air controller and the FAC picked out the targets by selecting them and the pilot hit them.... damn.... what a useless piece of crap... But hang on... the A in FA-18 means it should have been the F-18 doing that... except it wasn't that good at ground attack.

Essentially the F/A-18 was supposed to be the ground attack plane while the F-14 was the fighter, but the F-14 ended up doing the fighting and the ground attack.

The F-35 is supposed to be the strike aircraft and the F-18 is supposed to be the fighter, but I suspect lack of range and speed and internal weapons capacity means the F-18 can probably carry more and faster and further than the F-35 can when being stealthy. When carrying external weapons the F-35 will be not stealthy so they might as well use the faster Hornet.

To be honest I really don't care about US carrier aircraft choices, they clearly have forgotten what they are doing... just like their Air Force...

Breaking News... US Navy considering carrier based F-15BS to replace the F-35 and F-18...

F-14 with phoenix missiles cannot stop an attack with reasonable certainty to justify the cost.

I would agree it will not stop Kinzhal or Zircon, but Kh-22 and Kh-22M it would have a good chance. Against Kh-32 it just flys too high... mach 4.5 at 40km altitude is just too high, but Standard missiles would be used against such targets...

The point is that having aircraft carriers and having fighters and AWACS platforms makes sneak attacks almost impossible and successful attacks much less likely.

Just like on land with an airforce that also watches out for enemy incursions.

And only Russia is really capable of launching the type of attack that invalidates them. Ergo, carriers still great, but useless against Russia and now Chinese. Other then that STILL GREAT for beating up on the weaklings. Plus great for the MIC welfare system.

US carrier groups have been pointless for WWIII for the last 50 years... their strike aircraft just wont penetrate Russian land based air defences... it is pointless... but in situations where the US fleet is having problems the quickest responding asset is air power... any time there is a problem anywhere in the world the first question is... where is the nearest carrier group and how long till it can get there...

Right now hypersonic manouvering missiles are a problem for everyone, but in 10 years time solutions will be available... and it wont involve using large numbers of smaller ships because large numbers of smaller hypersonic missiles would be an easy and cheap solution to that stupidity.

Saying a Navy doesn't need big ships and aircraft carriers is like saying Russia does not need S-400 and S-500 SAMs or airfields.

Future weapons are going to fly very high above the engagement envelope of S-300 and S-350 missiles... simply because it is more efficient to fly through the thinner colder air up there... right now against the Russian Navy the Kh-32 would be a serious problem simply because they have no SAMs in service that can intercept targets flying at 40km altitude.... Mach 4.5 is not too fast to intercept but rather difficult if it is manouvering.... as it approaches a US carrier group and rapid climb from 40km up to 60km or 80km and then a near vertical dive down on the targets spiralling to avoid any interceptors launched to try to stop it... AFAIK the US Navy has no missile directors that can point straight up... and moving at the speed it will be going it will be through the target so quickly if you blinked you could miss it... but punching down vertically through a ship shouldn't be too much of a problem and when it hits salt water underneath detonating its 200kg warhead would create an enormous gas bubble under the hull of the ship which will rise up and lift the ship out of the water at a point that has just been punctured... most likely finishing the job of breaking the back of any ship no matter how big and sinking it.

What if the Russian send decoy drones, they shoot those down and the TU-22 exploit a short gap and come screaming in at Mach 1.8 and launch? so many options. The USN decided it could not be done, they know their stuff better then any of us.

You are saying US aircraft carriers are useless because they can't defend from an all out Russian attack... with any F-18s or F-14s nearby Tu-22s are enormously vulnerable like any bomber aircraft against fighter aircraft....

Have you been ignoring everything I am suggesting for the Russian fleet.... the best longest range fighter planes they have... Su-57s... carrier borne AWACS platforms that also serve the basis for inflight refuelling support aircraft... the US hasn't got Tu-22s... they are talking about reviving the B-1Bs to a similar role, but none of the weapons I have seen is much better than Tomahawk.... so essentially whether they launch them from F-18s or from B-1Bs it really does not matter because in both cases they will be launched from the max range of the missile, so most of the time it will be the missiles they have to deal with, and I would guess Su-57s would be pretty good at shooting down missiles of all types... they will be getting anti satellite missiles too.

I don't agree a modern cruiser is easier to sink then a dozen corvettes. It really depends on the disposition and arming of the corvettes. Fact is you will have to get 12 hits vs 1 hit and with the cruiser its much easier to concentrate your attacking force on one objective vs 12 well dispositioned targets.

12 Corvettes would not have the vision range of a cruiser even with helicopters on board... corvettes will have short range SAMs and perhaps medium range SAMs and one hit will kill every time. The only benefit of a corvette is its short range and lack of endurance will mean it will remain close to friendly shores and can benefit from land based forces... a group of 12 Russian corvettes in the southern Atlantic Ocean could be dealt with simply by intercepting their supply ships, plus 12 Zircons.

Based on what we saw in the Falklands, one hit will render any modern destroyer or cruiser inoperative. Based on how the USS Bonhomme burned I don't think carriers will do much better. Even deck accidents have rendered US carriers inoperative let alone being struck by a large explosive projectile.

That is very true, but without the carrier the Falklands would never have been retaken by a fleet of Corvettes... not then and not now. They lost ships because they pussied out and bought a mini carrier with Harriers instead of real fighters and AWACS aircraft. The bean counters won and cost a few billion dollars in ships that would otherwise have not been lost, and their experience led them to what they are now... guess what... their new carrier is rather more like the Kuznetsov than any of the Kiev class ships they thought were wonderful because they were cheaper.

I always wonder if the end of the F-14 was related to the USSR collapse.

If it was then it was very short sighted... they withdrew them in 2006 when Russia was starting to get back on its feet...

I suspect it had more to do with the F-35 mafia trying to sabotage any possible alternative system by having all the spares and toolings to make spares for the F-14 destroyed to prevent Iran from getting hold of them.

Maybe they might try and come up with a new interceptor concept, but I doubt it. Simply because missile tech has come too far.

The US Air Force has put the F-15 back in to production... if the navy had any brains they would look at a F-33 variant like Sukhoi did with the Flanker...

They didn't want to spend $ on modernizing & operating F-14s even with ground attack capability when more F-18E/F could be procured instead, which r capable of self-escorting missions.

F-14Ds were used in Afghanistan because the Hornets didn't have the range.

With CFTs their unrefueled range will be increased. Besides, the USN works closely with the USAF, esp. in power projection ashore.
Btw, Su-30/34 s can also be used against NATO CSGs:

You are not getting it.... such aircraft will be attacking US carrier groups whether there are carriers present or not... the aircraft carriers actually make them better able to survive an attack... they certainly don't make them more vulnerable.

They can use ARMs in the 1st wave to blind all ships' & AWACS radars before Tu-22M3M/95MSs unleash their AShM s.
For added range & speed, Tu-160s could be pressed as well- the USN would likely have 2-3 CVNs + the AF working together.

ARMs are just Ms.... the Soviet and Russian air defences are optimised to shoot down ARMs to prevent them from degrading the defence, so for a Russian aircraft carrier group it would just warn them that the attack was starting... which would be worse than useless.

There will be no Bears of Blackjacks involved... they will not go hunting for US ships. MiG-31s will launch Kinzhal missiles at US ships that get within range, so US carriers will be fine as long as they don't approach Russian defences.