OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


castor troy -> OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 7:51:19 AM)

Hi

Have just read in the news about the Russians sending out that carrier and when I looked at the picture I saw her carrying Su-27. Knowing how much people here know about these things, what do you think about that ship and her aircraft complement?




Oliver Heindorf -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 8:01:55 AM)

Nothing. Oh, wait, garbage.The plane itself is OK but I have stopped counting how often I sunk that this ship along with Slava, Kirov etc. in Harpoon Classic and H3. The weak point imho is that this ship carries less Aircraft then their american counterparts. Against an american CVGB this russian CVBG would simply have no chance to survive an encounter when things get hot. Not even thinking of the design itself as this ship cannot handle the same amount of planes in a given time than a modern Nimitz carrier could do.




Nanshin ron -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 8:11:20 AM)

Old and probably in need of total refit or scrapping.[:)] Easy to nail in the port by an airstrike from Finland or Norway i think.

Where are they sending it, Syria?
Or the Hormuz strait? War could start there from a collision with everyone parked there.
[:D]




wdolson -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 8:26:03 AM)

I believe the Soviets intended it as a stepping stone to larger carriers. They had no experience with them.

This carrier is probably on par with the British Harrier carriers.

Bill




LoBaron -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 8:32:04 AM)

Agreed, although the Flanker and its navalized version are the most beautiful modern warplanes in service IMHO.

The curves make it look so mean, definitely a beauty. [&o]

I watched a Russian Knights performance when visiting AirPower Zeltweg years ago, one of the largest air
shows in Europe. To witness what those crazy Russians are able to do with a heavy fighter double the size
of a Mig-29 is astonishing.

[img]http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshots/images/313736.jpg[/img]

With the advent of stealth technology the fighter type a/c just get uglier and uglier.




gradenko2k -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 8:32:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf
Nothing. Oh, wait, garbage.The plane itself is OK but I have stopped counting how often I sunk that this ship along with Slava, Kirov etc. in Harpoon Classic and H3. The weak point imho is that this ship carries less Aircraft then their american counterparts. Against an american CVGB this russian CVBG would simply have no chance to survive an encounter when things get hot. Not even thinking of the design itself as this ship cannot handle the same amount of planes in a given time than a modern Nimitz carrier could do.

I think this is kind of deliberate: The Kuznetsov isn't nearly as "capable" as the Nimitz class because A. they're not allowed to sail carriers across the Bosphorus due to the Montreux Convention of 1936 and B. their naval doctrine does not have as much focus on the area of power projection, or at least projecting it through carriers.

In fact, I believe the Kuznetsov and other Soviet "aircraft carriers" such as the Kiev-class ships are classified as cruisers, to circumvent the Montreux Convention.




cantona2 -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 8:48:43 AM)

I saw her pass through the Straits of Gibraltar yesterday




castor troy -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 9:03:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

Nothing. Oh, wait, garbage.The plane itself is OK but I have stopped counting how often I sunk that this ship along with Slava, Kirov etc. in Harpoon Classic and H3. The weak point imho is that this ship carries less Aircraft then their american counterparts. Against an american CVGB this russian CVBG would simply have no chance to survive an encounter when things get hot. Not even thinking of the design itself as this ship cannot handle the same amount of planes in a given time than a modern Nimitz carrier could do.




the couple of minutes I had time to search for info on the Inet pretty much says it is also not intended for what a US carrier is intended to do. While I would say the the US carriers are absolute offensive weapon systems, this Russian carrier is more likely to act as a defensive "shield" with it's fighters.




castor troy -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 9:05:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nanshin ron

Old and probably in need of total refit or scrapping.[:)] Easy to nail in the port by an airstrike from Finland or Norway i think.

Where are they sending it, Syria?
Or the Hormuz strait? War could start there from a collision with everyone parked there.
[:D]



Old? It's not really that old. Guess there are older US carriers around. And isn't such a ship supposed to stay something like 40 years in service anyway?




Nanshin ron -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 9:14:51 AM)

Well i checked from wikipedia that she is going to be practically build again by the end of this year.
I wouldnt be surprised if they find something they didnt expect during that refit, might never sail again.

The state of Russian Navy and armed forces in general is this, that is why they are planning to pump that 500billion euros in them. Its just that most of that will go to inefficiency and corruption.

Im from Finland, know thy neighbor and all that.[:)]





Shark7 -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 2:08:21 PM)

There were 2 Kuznetsov class, and the old Varyag is currently being refitted by the Chinese.




tocaff -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 2:24:43 PM)

The Chinese will gain some experience in carrier operations before attempting to build one of their own.  It's all about power projection and the South China Sea (Spratly Islands) abounds in mineral wealth.  The claims of so many different nations will ultimately be decided and the Chinese want that to be in their favor.




crsutton -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 2:37:11 PM)

I am beginning to suspect that almost any carrier is just too vulnerable these days to be worth it. The only thing that makes our American carriers useful is that at this time there is really no world power with the capability to take them. But I bet if they were in the hands of another nation that we would have no trouble taking them out....Which means that sooner or later somebody else will have that capability.




Terminus -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 3:45:12 PM)

Well, at least the Russkis are planning to remove the anti-ship missiles from the Kuznetsov. It's still a crap carrier, but maybe it'll be slightly less crap.




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 4:42:14 PM)

In fairness , the Kiev's were never intended to go toe to toe with USN flat tops. They were designed for a different mission, with a very different doctrine in mind.

Please keep in Mind that these ships were the brainchild of Sergi Goshkov (who kept a sign of his desk that read "Perfection is the enemy of good enough") Kruschev's head of the Navy. Where as Stalin wanted a big,blue water balanced fleet with battleships and carriers, Kruschev wanted none of that. Nothing larger than a Cruiser , "Which was only good for carting admirals around". So Goshkov was limited both by resources , and by politics. It's hard to lobby in favor of carriers when the party has just decreed them useless and symbols of Imperialism!

Goshkov was forced to rely on submarines and small craft rather than BB's and CV's. Missiles instead of bombers. So that's what he did. Build a big coastal defense Navy to force the CV's well back, limiting their nuclear attack aircraft. (The Soviets saw ALL war as leading to a nuclear confrontation. The question was always WHEN, never IF). And this worked well as long as the Navy faced CV's. Their own subs would raid u-boat style (joined by a few CL's and DDG's) on western convoys.

The Polaris came out. Big problem. Now you need to force them back, with landbased ASW , lots of cheap frigates , destroyers and Anti-submarine cruisers (The Soviets NEVER called them that, but Large ASW Patrol ships). Then Moskva and Leningrad , what we would call CHV's , (They would call them "Tactical aircraft carrying ASW Cruisers"--quite a mouthful, but still thinking ASW , not strike).

Eventually the Soviets would build SSBN's of their own (1st Yankee's which operated off Bermuda, then the Delta series , operating further and farther back from the USA) and gave their Navy a new job, protecting those SSBN's. ASW ships were good against western SSN's and SS's, and the surface ships with their long range missiles could threaten ASW CV's (Like the ASW Essex's and latter the British Invincibles) , but could do nothing against flocks of P-3's,Nimrods and Atlantic's.

So enter the Kiev class. Their main battery was not the Yak-36 (or sometimes called YAK 38) Forger VTOL planes they carried, but those same "crappy" missiles that Terminus refers to. They were quite a threat to USN CV's. And these ships carried what was considered a massive battery of AAA and AS missile in their day. And along with the usual Hormone and Helix ASW and early warning aircraft , we had the YAK's. No threat to F-14's,F-4's, or even Harriers and Sea Harriers. But to P-3's, Nimrods and other Maritime patrol aircraft and Helicopters? A huge bloody threat! (I speak from 1st hand experince!).

With the later Delta's and eventual the Typhoon class, the Soviets were able to retreat into "Bastions" just outside their harbors where ASW aircraft couldn't go , and SSN's did so at their extreme peril. Later , the Soviets got the bright idea of moving the Typhoons under the edge of the ice pack, where they could be protected by their fleet , and drive MPA aircraft crazy trying to get at them through the ice!

After the fall of the Soveit union , three of the Kiev's were scrapped and Goshkov was used as a test ship, being fitted with a "phased Array" RADAR system , kind of a "poor man's SPY-1" (used with the USN Aegis system).

So why was the Goshkov fitted as a CV? Because that was all they had, having sold the unfinished Varayg (sister ship to the Tiblisi/Kuneskov), and you can only sell what you have. Obviously some arms dealer mad a hell of a commission , as she was sold twice to the same buyer. 1st to buy her, then full price again to FINISH her!

So while the Goshkov was "good enough" for Soviet work, how will she perform in her new role? I'm going out on a limb and say "probably not good enough". [:D]




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 4:47:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am beginning to suspect that almost any carrier is just too vulnerable these days to be worth it. The only thing that makes our American carriers useful is that at this time there is really no world power with the capability to take them. But I bet if they were in the hands of another nation that we would have no trouble taking them out....Which means that sooner or later somebody else will have that capability.


Politicians need to realize that CV's are simply floating airfields. Like any airfield , it needs to ne protected. Reducing the size of the airgroup and escort screen, and eliminating ASW fixed wing aircraft (in the name of saving money) is "penny wise and pound foolish". It's like protecting the crown jewels with a cheap padlock. [:(]




tocaff -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 6:09:52 PM)

Any defense can be overwhelmed by an attack if the #s are great enough.




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 6:45:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Any defense can be overwhelmed by an attack if the #s are great enough.


Of course! The trick is to use force multipliers ,training and doctrine to make the expense too dear for the game. When you consider that even as depleted as the USN's CVN's airgroup may currently be , it's still larger than most countries air forces. Now double it (as they were designed for) and you have a target that will cost far more than it's worth.

Under the old Soviet system it was estimated to cost several bomber regiments and several subs (and possibly a SAG) to bring down ONE CVN group. OK, so they got one. There were always at least 11 more where that group came from! How many CVN groups could you afford to sink? Two would pretty much waste the whole Russian surface fleet and most of their naval aviation assets. How many countries could afford that? [&:]





tocaff -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 7:17:56 PM)

Of course you're right, but with the bean counters being penny wise and pound foolish the price has been substantially reduced and depending on where you find yourself somebody might consider the CVBG to be irresistable while "on sale".  There is a certain Asian country that has a rapidly growing military capability.




PeteG662 -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 7:30:34 PM)

There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 7:49:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 


I recall about ten years or so ago there was a huge up set during an electronic wargame where the RED force mobbed a CVN group with Zodiac type boats and guys with RPG's. It upset people in the Pentagon so much that there were quite a few study groups looking into such unorthodox tactics and threats , and how to deal with them. Most 25 footers couldn't carry a torpedo (which a heavy weight anti-surface torpedo must be at least 25"). But they can carry rocket lauchers and Man portable anti-tank missiles.


I'm not exactly a DC resident lately , but give me till summer. Then I should be in DC every couple of months! [:D]




Apollo11 -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 7:51:23 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In fairness , the Kiev's were never intended to go toe to toe with USN flat tops. They were designed for a different mission, with a very different doctrine in mind.

Please keep in Mind that these ships were the brainchild of Sergi Goshkov (who kept a sign of his desk that read "Perfection is the enemy of good enough") Kruschev's head of the Navy. Where as Stalin wanted a big,blue water balanced fleet with battleships and carriers, Kruschev wanted none of that. Nothing larger than a Cruiser , "Which was only good for carting admirals around". So Goshkov was limited both by resources , and by politics. It's hard to lobby in favor of carriers when the party has just decreed them useless and symbols of Imperialism!

Goshkov was forced to rely on submarines and small craft rather than BB's and CV's. Missiles instead of bombers. So that's what he did. Build a big coastal defense Navy to force the CV's well back, limiting their nuclear attack aircraft. (The Soviets saw ALL war as leading to a nuclear confrontation. The question was always WHEN, never IF). And this worked well as long as the Navy faced CV's. Their own subs would raid u-boat style (joined by a few CL's and DDG's) on western convoys.

The Polaris came out. Big problem. Now you need to force them back, with landbased ASW , lots of cheap frigates , destroyers and Anti-submarine cruisers (The Soviets NEVER called them that, but Large ASW Patrol ships). Then Moskva and Leningrad , what we would call CHV's , (They would call them "Tactical aircraft carrying ASW Cruisers"--quite a mouthful, but still thinking ASW , not strike).

Eventually the Soviets would build SSBN's of their own (1st Yankee's which operated off Bermuda, then the Delta series , operating further and farther back from the USA) and gave their Navy a new job, protecting those SSBN's. ASW ships were good against western SSN's and SS's, and the surface ships with their long range missiles could threaten ASW CV's (Like the ASW Essex's and latter the British Invincibles) , but could do nothing against flocks of P-3's,Nimrods and Atlantic's.

So enter the Kiev class. Their main battery was not the Yak-36 (or sometimes called YAK 38) Forger VTOL planes they carried, but those same "crappy" missiles that Terminus refers to. They were quite a threat to USN CV's. And these ships carried what was considered a massive battery of AAA and AS missile in their day. And along with the usual Hormone and Helix ASW and early warning aircraft , we had the YAK's. No threat to F-14's,F-4's, or even Harriers and Sea Harriers. But to P-3's, Nimrods and other Maritime patrol aircraft and Helicopters? A huge bloody threat! (I speak from 1st hand experince!).

With the later Delta's and eventual the Typhoon class, the Soviets were able to retreat into "Bastions" just outside their harbors where ASW aircraft couldn't go , and SSN's did so at their extreme peril. Later , the Soviets got the bright idea of moving the Typhoons under the edge of the ice pack, where they could be protected by their fleet , and drive MPA aircraft crazy trying to get at them through the ice!

After the fall of the Soveit union , three of the Kiev's were scrapped and Goshkov was used as a test ship, being fitted with a "phased Array" RADAR system , kind of a "poor man's SPY-1" (used with the USN Aegis system).

So why was the Goshkov fitted as a CV? Because that was all they had, having sold the unfinished Varayg (sister ship to the Tiblisi/Kuneskov), and you can only sell what you have. Obviously some arms dealer mad a hell of a commission , as she was sold twice to the same buyer. 1st to buy her, then full price again to FINISH her!

So while the Goshkov was "good enough" for Soviet work, how will she perform in her new role? I'm going out on a limb and say "probably not good enough". [:D]


Thanks Steve! [:)]

BTW, what do you think about rumored China's long range (almost ICMB) missile that in theory threaten CVs?


Leo "Apollo11"




PeteG662 -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 7:55:36 PM)

Steve,

My recall of the boat length was likely incorrect but no biggie since you got the gist. Yes, there was a classified wargame of that scenario and the CVBG had its clock cleaned so badly that they halted the wargame and changed the parameters for a "blue" force win. There have been some recent media articles on this wargame with all the saber rattling going on over there.

Pete




EUBanana -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 8:01:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Steve,

My recall of the boat length was likely incorrect but no biggie since you got the gist. Yes, there was a classified wargame of that scenario and the CVBG had its clock cleaned so badly that they halted the wargame and changed the parameters for a "blue" force win. There have been some recent media articles on this wargame with all the saber rattling going on over there.

Pete


Paul van Riper struck again? [:D]




PeteG662 -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 8:04:16 PM)

The one and only!




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 11:02:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In fairness , the Kiev's were never intended to go toe to toe with USN flat tops. They were designed for a different mission, with a very different doctrine in mind.

Please keep in Mind that these ships were the brainchild of Sergi Goshkov (who kept a sign of his desk that read "Perfection is the enemy of good enough") Kruschev's head of the Navy. Where as Stalin wanted a big,blue water balanced fleet with battleships and carriers, Kruschev wanted none of that. Nothing larger than a Cruiser , "Which was only good for carting admirals around". So Goshkov was limited both by resources , and by politics. It's hard to lobby in favor of carriers when the party has just decreed them useless and symbols of Imperialism!

Goshkov was forced to rely on submarines and small craft rather than BB's and CV's. Missiles instead of bombers. So that's what he did. Build a big coastal defense Navy to force the CV's well back, limiting their nuclear attack aircraft. (The Soviets saw ALL war as leading to a nuclear confrontation. The question was always WHEN, never IF). And this worked well as long as the Navy faced CV's. Their own subs would raid u-boat style (joined by a few CL's and DDG's) on western convoys.

The Polaris came out. Big problem. Now you need to force them back, with landbased ASW , lots of cheap frigates , destroyers and Anti-submarine cruisers (The Soviets NEVER called them that, but Large ASW Patrol ships). Then Moskva and Leningrad , what we would call CHV's , (They would call them "Tactical aircraft carrying ASW Cruisers"--quite a mouthful, but still thinking ASW , not strike).

Eventually the Soviets would build SSBN's of their own (1st Yankee's which operated off Bermuda, then the Delta series , operating further and farther back from the USA) and gave their Navy a new job, protecting those SSBN's. ASW ships were good against western SSN's and SS's, and the surface ships with their long range missiles could threaten ASW CV's (Like the ASW Essex's and latter the British Invincibles) , but could do nothing against flocks of P-3's,Nimrods and Atlantic's.

So enter the Kiev class. Their main battery was not the Yak-36 (or sometimes called YAK 38) Forger VTOL planes they carried, but those same "crappy" missiles that Terminus refers to. They were quite a threat to USN CV's. And these ships carried what was considered a massive battery of AAA and AS missile in their day. And along with the usual Hormone and Helix ASW and early warning aircraft , we had the YAK's. No threat to F-14's,F-4's, or even Harriers and Sea Harriers. But to P-3's, Nimrods and other Maritime patrol aircraft and Helicopters? A huge bloody threat! (I speak from 1st hand experince!).

With the later Delta's and eventual the Typhoon class, the Soviets were able to retreat into "Bastions" just outside their harbors where ASW aircraft couldn't go , and SSN's did so at their extreme peril. Later , the Soviets got the bright idea of moving the Typhoons under the edge of the ice pack, where they could be protected by their fleet , and drive MPA aircraft crazy trying to get at them through the ice!

After the fall of the Soveit union , three of the Kiev's were scrapped and Goshkov was used as a test ship, being fitted with a "phased Array" RADAR system , kind of a "poor man's SPY-1" (used with the USN Aegis system).

So why was the Goshkov fitted as a CV? Because that was all they had, having sold the unfinished Varayg (sister ship to the Tiblisi/Kuneskov), and you can only sell what you have. Obviously some arms dealer mad a hell of a commission , as she was sold twice to the same buyer. 1st to buy her, then full price again to FINISH her!

So while the Goshkov was "good enough" for Soviet work, how will she perform in her new role? I'm going out on a limb and say "probably not good enough". [:D]


Thanks Steve! [:)]

BTW, what do you think about rumored China's long range (almost ICMB) missile that in theory threaten CVs?


Leo "Apollo11"


I'm not sure how effective it would be. 1st you need real time, precise data on where the carrier is. Then you need to drop in on the carrier precisely , after getting by any THADs equipped Aeigis DDG's and CG's that can intercept it. And even if you do hit it (and presumably sink it ) ok , now what? You've escallated to full scale nuclear war. Yes, China takes out a CV , and the US takes out China's 100 biggest cities. Do you call that a win?

Frankly , even if it worked , China would not use it. For the same reason that the USA won't employ a convetionally equipped ICBM as a anti-terroist weapon (Global strike). Because you can not distinguish it from a strategic nuclear strike.

But it is an excellent propaganda weapon. Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades![:D]




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/3/2012 11:03:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Steve,

My recall of the boat length was likely incorrect but no biggie since you got the gist. Yes, there was a classified wargame of that scenario and the CVBG had its clock cleaned so badly that they halted the wargame and changed the parameters for a "blue" force win. There have been some recent media articles on this wargame with all the saber rattling going on over there.

Pete


Paul van Riper struck again? [:D]


Kind of an ironic name , considering Sterling Haden's role name in Dr. Strangelove.[:D]




Chickenboy -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/4/2012 12:48:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades![:D]

Are you suggesting that A-mad-in-de-head's missiles aren't firing? [:D]




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/4/2012 1:50:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades![:D]

Are you suggesting that A-mad-in-de-head's missiles aren't firing? [:D]



Last year , Mr. Ahm-a-dinner-jacket's forces claimed a mass launch of 14 missiles at once. They launched 3, but the photo showed 14 ( some of them without contrails , some with miss-matched). It confirmed an ugly and feared truth. The Iranians have Photoshop and are not afraid to use it! [:D]




pharmy -> RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov (2/4/2012 9:59:51 AM)

Ah, but that was their anti-Israel capability they were showing off. The US is much more worried about those missiles that launch horizontally stationed at the straights of Hormuz, the one Nato calls Sunburn, nasty little 3 mach bugger. That means it flies at a km a second - 30 km wide straight, nightmare for a bushwacked transiting force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades![:D]

Are you suggesting that A-mad-in-de-head's missiles aren't firing? [:D]



Last year , Mr. Ahm-a-dinner-jacket's forces claimed a mass launch of 14 missiles at once. They launched 3, but the photo showed 14 ( some of them without contrails , some with miss-matched). It confirmed an ugly and feared truth. The Iranians have Photoshop and are not afraid to use it! [:D]





Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.03125