the Soviets put missiles on just about everything that could float...
Posted on 10/25/2016 7:03:28 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
the Soviets put missiles on just about everything that could float...
Of COURSE it’s heavily armed... it’s Russian!!!
They put a gun on EVERYTHING, and then put another gun on each of the other guns.
It’s what they do...
In our leaders psychopathic minds, they are just another Libya.
“In the 1950s and 1960s, aircraft carriers were seen by Soviet military elites as imperialist tools of aggression, and any initiative by the USSR to build one of their own was shot down by the powers that be. “
I don’t think that was the reason. They aren’t stupid, and they weren’t following a non-aggressive course based on such a principle. They simply didn’t have the vital need to control sea lanes that we did. They are not and never have been a seafaring nation as a result of geography. Our problem was protecting far flung interests and trade, and lines of communication with Europe. We have two giant coastlines. That all screams for a powerful navy.
The Russians had an entirely different problem. Either a roll through Europe attack, or a defense of their massive homeland. Their lines of communication between the front and the homeland were on land. The red Army didn’t get their food, fuel, ammo, and tanks sent by sea.
So they developed what they needed, a tremendous SAM capability, mobile missiles, a very large and heavy mechanized army. Most of all, they developed all the nukes they could. If anyone tries a Barbarossa repeat, their home will be vaporized.
As a result, the Red Navy had two main goals, ICBMs from boomer subs close to our coasts, and attack subs to try to repeat the German success in hurting our lines to Europe and to watch our moves.
That’s why they didn’t build carriers and why we were never that big on SAMS. That’s why we had an enormous navy and world beating fighters, while they built a million tanks and artillery tubes.
Different needs gives different answers.
With an eye on the market...the express purpose of putting down the Arab Spring...the Russians did roll out this bad boy AND you can retrofit your older tanks with this turret:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J_pA0Or0Cqg/maxresdefault.jpg
because you can’t have too many missiles or tanks....just ask the Germans in WWII.
Everything DesertRhino said. The Kuznetsov is a carrier killer. Our carrier’s are high value and vulnerable. Destroying them greatly limits our ability to project force.
What is it with this love affair with Soviet era naval weaponry all of a sudden? There were some things they did well, but I simply can’t get excited about dang near anything they floated on the water during the Cold War.
The Kirov class were beautiful ships with lots of weaponry, but nearly everything else including subs (until the Eighties) was inferior IMO. Like DesertRhino said in his very good post, they put their resources into things that were strategically important to them and did a good job at some of those.
I always felt that their navy was simply a propaganda tool so they could simply say they had a Navy too (except for their submarines, which they appeared to try hard to improve)
All those well known reservations the Soviet sailors themselves had for the safety of their nuclear submarines had a foundation in truth.
Define destroying one of our carriers. Sinking it? Crippling it? Temporarily disabling it?
Armament:
Missiles:
16 (8 x 2) P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 Sandbox) anti-ship missiles
64 (8 x 8) S-300F Fort (SA-N-6 Grumble) long-range surface-to-air missiles
40 (2 × 20) OSA-M (SA-N-4 Gecko) SR SAM
Guns:
1 twin AK-130 130mm/L70 dual purpose guns
6 × 6 AK-630 close-in weapons systems
Torpedoes and others:
2 × 12 RBU-6000 anti-submarine mortars
10 (2 x 5) 533mm torpedo tubes
The Kirov class have been modernized and are still around. They are superior to nearly every surface unit in the US Navy. Our fleet in in neglect and our weapons systems are old.
This is what we have to be worried about and this can be mounted on a number of platforms easily. Kirov and Oscar II class subs have been modified to carry these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
Slava class cruisers are bad-ass too.
The simple explanation of the Granit should be enlightening for most.
excellent analysis-es both
“Define destroying one of our carriers. Sinking it? Crippling it? Temporarily disabling it?”
The inability to successfully launch aircraft.
Now days ALL you have to do is blow the antennas off any ship and it's dead.
Out of the fight and a sitting duck awaiting destruction.
No radar, no comms, no aircraft control.
100%
So not "destroying" it. Frankly using non nuclear weapons it is almost impossible to sink a modern CVN.
So not being able to launch aircraft for hours, days, months?
Wicked stuff the Russian’s put in the water. It would look cool in space in a sci-fi movie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
