Soviet Super-Carrier 'Ulyanovsk'

Quote:

Roy is right on most of his remarks but the Russian Airforce almost doesn't use MiG 23's anymore

==I think 4 training regiments in the air defence force still has 100+ MiG-23's, and several dozens distributed in other units, this information might be a bit out of date, but I can't find anything newer.

Quote:

The Kuznetsov also has long-range S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and was built primarily to defend ships and submarines at sea against NATO air supremacy, while its helicopters can attack enemy subs.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/329-9.cfm
...S-300...S-300

Quote:

The carrier is surrounded with heavy security in Dalian, which bars civilian access; police flank the shipyard entrance. This fueled speculation that the Varyag is being used by the Chinese military. It is not evident that China could actually turn Varyag into an active military warship, since he is badly deteriorated. Presently 70 percent complete, Varyag displaces about 33,600 tons [versus the 67,000-ton design displacement]. Varyag no longer has the nuclear reactors that were installed by the Ukrainian state-run Generating Systems of Crimea. Electronics were either never fitted or removed before he was sold.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm
Wow...so the Soviets actually put nuclear reactors on it

And you are...'dexaggerating' the range of the shkval. According to fas.org, the range is 7500 yards (6800m). And, we were not arguing whether or not it would be used by a ship against another ship, but whether it is used on ships....as it is. The ship is still impregnable to surface attack. The range of longest harpoon missile is 150+ miles (fas.org). While the SA-N-6 has a range of up to 200km (fas.org). Your F/A-18 won't be able to get close enough to launch the Harpoon. By the way, maximum effective range of Granat, is actually 625km (fas.org), meaning that the Americans must not approach closer than that distance if they are not suicidal. Also, this missile, can also carry a 50kiloton nuclear warhead, meaning: if they are at war and come across a US carrier taskforce....no more carrier taskforce.
Point is: Americans simply cannot approach close enough to engage Varyag without almost certain destruction.

That article says that the Kuznetsov and therefore Varyag has weapons that you say it didn't have.

By the way, I checked the Guinness Book of Records, and!....guess what!...T-72, T-80, T-90 family of tanks are most heavily armed in the world, with the 125mm gun! (It even has a picture of a T-90 jumping off ramp in the back ground)
Maybe you have a 1969 Guinness Book of Records...wait...then Russians would still have the most heavily armed tank! I forgot about the T-62! Silly me.
The Russian generally have the largest weapons. Largest missile cruiser, largest submarine, fastest fighters, the most heavily armed planes, longest range SAMs, helicopters, the list goes on.....

The Ka-50's design was finalised in 1992, but one prototype appeared in Afghanistan. And no, I haven't heard the news that the Russians have chosen the Mi-28 over the Ka-50. Please post link.

You often change the context of the things said. When I said that we will see Kuznetsov and not Ulyanovsk or Varyag, I was saying that the Russians still have the technology. They may not have quantity but they have quality.

The tanks and other armour, is constantly getting upgraded. The T-72s are getting upgraded to T-90 standard, while the T-80s will, if nothing bad happens, start to get upgraded to the Black Eagle standard.

And I'm not saying that int_00h is right about EVERYTHING. I meant, find some of his posts on militaria, and we will discuss what is fake and what is not. The only thing, that remains unconfirmed is the lasers on Varyag and Ulyanovsk. Although there are many links about the military purposes of the MLTK-50 laser, there is not any that say that it was on the Varyag. However, it is most probable that it would have been, as this technology is very easy to fit on to such a carrier.

And the Russian navy is not in that bad shape. They lost the Kursk and didn't feel any economic burden then. Every month they test missiles without going bankrupt. The Russian economy is improving. GNP grew by 6.8%. But! this is not economics forum!

About the MiG-23's: Altogether, 4000 were built. A lot of them went to China and 32 other countries for export. That leaves roughly about 125 units used by the Russians. Take the numbers that broke down, the ones that were just scrapped, and you are left with about 100 units, mainly used for training, probably stationed somewhere in Olenok .

Quote:

http://www.cdi.org/russia/329-9.cfm
...S-300...S-300

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet ... /11435.htm
http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rcar.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 1143_5.htm
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/

==No other source has suggested that Kuznetsov has s-300 system, in fact, there are no signs of S-300 launchers on any of the photoes or drawings of Kuznetsov.

Quote:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm
Wow...so the Soviets actually put nuclear reactors on it

==That's the only source that actually says that Varyag has nuclear reactors as well, and look at this picture of the bridge of the Varyag,

Notice that she has a funnel.

Quote:

And you are...'dexaggerating' the range of the shkval. According to fas.org, the range is 7500 yards (6800m).

==1.8 km, what diference does it make?

Quote:

And, we were not arguing whether or not it would be used by a ship against another ship, but whether it is used on ships....as it is.

==BA-III has never been mounted and never has been intended to be mounted on any surface ship, and and interrupt_00h's claim that Varyag is equiped with it is absurd as Varyag doesn't have any topedo tubes.

Quote:

By the way, I checked the Guinness Book of Records, and!....guess what!...T-72, T-80, T-90 family of tanks are most heavily armed in the world, with the 125mm gun! (It even has a picture of a T-90 jumping off ramp in the back ground)

==Largest calibre, not the most powerful, 2A46 is no where near the best gun.

Quote:

And no, I haven't heard the news that the Russians have chosen the Mi-28 over the Ka-50.

==Try to look through the news archive of http://jczs.sina.com.cn/, I have yet to find the same news in english.

Quote:

The Russian generally have the largest weapons. Largest missile cruiser, largest submarine, fastest fighters, the most heavily armed planes, longest range SAMs, helicopters, the list goes on.....

==This statement has shown me that your idea of warfare has not moved beyond medival age.

==Have you noticed that the US army has stopped developing tanks with bigger guns and thicker armour after M1A2? Have you noticed that they also cancelled Commanche programme, and scraped the heavy Crusader self-propelled gun? And Why do you think they are replacing heavily armed and armoured mechanised units with light Stryke brigades? And have you noticed that the US navy has cancelled arsenal ship programmes, and A-12 stealth bomber? And US air force has decided to cut down the number of B-1 bombers while keep using B-52?

==You have to realise that it's not how big your guns are or how fast you can fly that actually counts on the modern battlefield, the determining factor is your ability to gather information and deny enemy of it and use those information to your advantage.

==Remember, you still can win with outdated weapons, but outdated thinking means certain death.

Quote:

You often change the context of the things said. When I said that we will see Kuznetsov and not Ulyanovsk or Varyag, I was saying that the Russians still have the technology. They may not have quantity but they have quality.

==Most of those technologies are leftovers from the Soviet era, the current level of funding put into research and development is far from enough.

Quote:

And the Russian navy is not in that bad shape. They lost the Kursk and didn't feel any economic burden then. Every month they test missiles without going bankrupt. The Russian economy is improving. GNP grew by 6.8%. But! this is not economics forum!

==Things are improving, but the Russian nave has already lost too much in the first 10 years after the collapse of USSR, it will take them decades to recover.

wow, very interesting!

As for there only being 1 source for the S-300s on the ships, and the nuclear reactors on Varyag, there is more, just that they say exactly the same thing as the article I posted. Also, there is only 1 source for the Mi-28 over Ka-50 post.

As for the Shkval not being mounted on ships, that photo I posted in my earlier posts shows it being launched off ships and various other platforms. You are wrong in saying that it was never mounted or never planned to be mounted on ships.

Are we talking about most powerful, largest calibre, or best tank gun??? As far as I know, the 2A46 can withstand more pressure than any tank gun used by NATO. Infact, it even uses double charged Sabots i.e. 2 shells full of gun powder (One main one which detonates in the chamber, and the other smaller one detonates just before midway through the barrel, propelling the projectile at frightening speeds.)
If you do not think that that gun is the best, please tell us which is.

Quote:

==This statement has shown me that your idea of warfare has not moved beyond medival age.

You are a hypocrite. You were the one that was bragging that the imperialists have bigger weapons in the first place (which they don't). The imperialists have needlessly large weapons. The Abrams is already a huge mother f*****, eating tonnes of fuel, and has little mobility. That is because American design principle always was: bigger weapons=bigger armour; unlike the Russians.

Quote:

==Have you noticed that the US army has stopped developing tanks with bigger guns and thicker armour after M1A2? Have you noticed that they also cancelled Commanche programme, and scraped the heavy Crusader self-propelled gun? And Why do you think they are replacing heavily armed and armoured mechanised units with light Stryke brigades? And have you noticed that the US navy has cancelled arsenal ship programmes, and A-12 stealth bomber? And US air force has decided to cut down the number of B-1 bombers while keep using B-52?

As the Russians have done a long time ago....a very long time ago.
BTW, the A-12 was cancelled in 1991 because it would take up 70% of the navy's budget.

Quote:

==Most of those technologies are leftovers from the Soviet era, the current level of funding put into research and development is far from enough.

Those old technologies are enough to keep the Americans on their toes, and waste millions of dollars developing countermeasure.

Quote:

==Things are improving, but the Russian nave has already lost too much in the first 10 years after the collapse of USSR, it will take them decades to recover.

I never knew you were an economist.

Quote:

As for the Shkval not being mounted on ships, that photo I posted in my earlier posts shows it being launched off ships and various other platforms. You are wrong in saying that it was never mounted or never planned to be mounted on ships.

==That was not a photo, as the caption suggest, <<схема применения ракеты>> it is a schematic diagramme showing how the torpedo will operate, it is not the real thing.

Quote:

If you do not think that that gun is the best, please tell us which is.

==German L55, Chinese 125mm?

Quote:

You are a hypocrite. You were the one that was bragging that the imperialists have bigger weapons in the first place (which they don't). The imperialists have needlessly large weapons. The Abrams is already a huge mother f*****, eating tonnes of fuel, and has little mobility. That is because American design principle always was: bigger weapons=bigger armour; unlike the Russians.

== Bigger guns is a metaphor for advanced weaponery and a powerful military, it doesn't literally mean "bigger guns"

Quote:

As the Russians have done a long time ago....a very long time ago.

==The Russians are really lagging behind

Quote:

Those old technologies are enough to keep the Americans on their toes, and waste millions of dollars developing countermeasure.

==The Americans are not on their toes, Baltic states, Poland, and Ukraine are all going to Join NATO, Gruzia, Azerbaydzan and Mongolia is getting really friendly with the US, and Americans have already establishe a foot hold in central Asia, with dwindling number allies, and a rate of losing up to 500 million citizens a year, the survival of the Russian nation is at stake.

Quote:

I never knew you were an economist.

==Yeah, and I am also a soldier, scientist, engineer, political activist, porno director and comedian

Quote:

==The circled parts are Klinok systems, S-300 look something like this

*Sigh*

Quote:

it is a schematic diagramme showing how the torpedo will operate, it is not the real thing.

...Therefore, they were at least planning to use it on ships....or, already use it on ships. It also shows that a submarine is launching the rocket...do you think that that is only 'idea' also?

Quote:

==German L55, Chinese 125mm?

Please give us technical specs.
Would the German L55 be the 120mm gun fitted on the Abrams and Leopard tanks?
Would the Chinese 125mm be the gun on this tank?:

Hmmm, its very similar to the gun on this tank:

Quote:

and a rate of losing up to 500 million citizens a year, the survival of the Russian nation is at stake.

Are you pretending to be more stupid than you really are??

As for your knowledge of the political situation across the CIS, you are only half right. Ukraine will have trouble joining NATO, they are too reliant on Russian gas and oil. Russia has political influence over in that respect. Americans do not have a foothold in central asia. Kazakhstan, Kyrghizia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have, on the contrary, become extremely friendly with the Russians (Russians also control their water supplies). Only Shaakashvilli wants to join NATO in Georgia (are really an australian? Why did you call it Gruzia?), and Shaakashvilli's days are numbered. It is predicted that this will be his last year in office. As for Azerbaidjan, I don't know much about it, except that it is the most neutral of the South Caucasus.

Yeah, interrupt_00h also said he was a programmer, economist, military engineer, etc.
And you call yourself a soldier, pfft! You think that finish a few week long training course for the army reserves makes you a soldier?

And your other arguments are so.....how should I say.....silly, I'm not going to dignify them with an answer.

Quote:

Therefore, they were at least planning to use it on ships....or, already use it on ships. It also shows that a submarine is launching the rocket...do you think that that is only 'idea' also?

==Look at the technical specs of BA-III, it is not suitable to be mounted on to surface ships.

Quote:

Would the German L55 be the 120mm gun fitted on the Abrams and Leopard tanks?

==No, the ones fitted on the Abrams is the L44, L55 is the one that is the one prepared to be mounted on the Leopard2A6, new generation shit.

Quote:

Would the Chinese 125mm be the gun on this tank?:
Hmmm, its very similar to the gun on this tank:

==The Chinese 125mm has very little to do with the Russian 125mm except for the auto-loader, it is a development of the Chinese 120mm gun, which inturn is developed from the Swedish 120 mm gun,

Ukraine will have trouble joining NATO, they are too reliant on Russian gas and oil. Russia has political influence over in that respect.

Quote:

Americans do not have a foothold in central asia.

==Have you kicked American's out of Afghanistan? And you also stopped CIA from sending suspected terrorists to Uzbekistan?

Quote:

Only Shaakashvilli wants to join NATO in Georgia (are really an australian? Why did you call it Gruzia?), and Shaakashvilli's days are numbered.

==Shaakashvilli got into power because his predecessor got too friendly with the Russians, and the Russians failed to stop the velvet revolution, so I don't see any way the Russians can establish a pro-Russian government in Gruzia.

==And what's wrong with saying Gruzia instead Georgia? It prevents confusion with the state Georgia in the US.

Quote:

Yeah, interrupt_00h also said he was a programmer, economist, military engineer, etc.

==Yeah, but he doesn't know how to make quality porno nor comedy, and he never undertook any study to be an engineer, big difference.

Quote:

And you call yourself a soldier, pfft! You think that finish a few week long training course for the army reserves makes you a soldier?

==Now I am qualified to operate and maintain radios, fill in paper works, change light bulbs, I would assume that it does make me a soldier.

Shkval: When it is mounted in ships, it is in a cocoon thing. When it is launch, all of it goes into the water and the cocoon gets discarded, leaving the actual rocket to do it's thing.

Guns: Please show technical specs. How much pressure can those guns handle???

Afghanistan and Uzbekistan: Afghanistan is insignificant and is not in Russia's interests. As for Uzbekistan...yes. Americans have left their only military base and gave it to the Russians on request of the Uzbek government.

Interrupt_00h: Actually, he did post his diplomas here once. And you porn makers are the lowest of the low. You ruin culture, I have not enough words to describe you!

Soldiering: Awesome! I'm a soldier as well! Let's go become mercenaries!

Quote:

When it is mounted in ships, it is in a cocoon thing. When it is launch, all of it goes into the water and the cocoon gets discarded, leaving the actual rocket to do it's thing.

==I meant its range, 6.8 km, the range effective of Otto 76mm gun is 10 km, the effective range of Harpoon is 140 km, the effective range of Granit is 550km, having BA-III on a surface ship would virtually be useless, Russian surface ships only carry ТЭСТ and УСЭТ torpedoes and РПК anti-submarine missiles in their torpedo tubes.

Quote:

Afghanistan is insignificant and is not in Russia's interests.

==Take a map and have a look at it, Afghanistan gives the Americans a foothold in the central asia, which will give Americans a base to topple pro-Russian governments in all those XXXstan's.

Quote:

And you porn makers are the lowest of the low. You ruin culture, I have not enough words to describe you!

==No, I bring happiness to people, it's a good course.

Quote:

Soldiering: Awesome! I'm a soldier as well! Let's go become mercenaries!

==You actually need a piece of paper to say that you are qualified in all those things before you can get that 13 dollar an hour pay.

I'm back!

The Shkval, when mounted on ships (and a lot of times on subs) is used as a revenge weapon (fas.org); it is fired in the direction an enemy torpedo is coming from, hopefully breaking the guidance wire.

Well, the Americans can try, but as long as Russian border guards control the borders between the XXXstans and Afghanistan, the Americans won't be doing anything too 'rash'. Besides, it's too late for the Americans to do anything in the XXXstans. All the governments have a strong pro-Russian foundation. You saw what happened in Kyrghizia...I don't think Americans would want to do that again. And the Americans are already kicked out of Uzbekistan...

Happiness at the expense of culture and morals. i.e. like drugs.

I'm sure I could forge that paper.

Quote:

The Shkval, when mounted on ships (and a lot of times on subs) is used as a revenge weapon (fas.org); it is fired in the direction an enemy torpedo is coming from, hopefully breaking the guidance wire.

==I don't think that any one would really do this, it would take up valuable torpedo tubes that can be used for anti-submarine torpedoes and anti-submarine missiles, RBU-6000 and RBU-Udav are the actual weapons used against torpedoes.

Quote:

Well, the Americans can try, but as long as Russian border guards control the borders between the XXXstans and Afghanistan, the Americans won't be doing anything too 'rash'.

==Border guards don't mean anything, Americans always topple government using covert means.

Quote:

Besides, it's too late for the Americans to do anything in the XXXstans. All the governments have a strong pro-Russian foundation. You saw what happened in Kyrghizia...I don't think Americans would want to do that again. And the Americans are already kicked out of Uzbekistan...

==Americans are willing to try it again and again, after all it's not Americans that are getting killed, their goal is to destabilised the region, trust me, it won't be a pretty sight.

Do you understand the term of revenge weapon? Not only is it used for breaking guidance wires, but also destroying the enemy sub/ship. It is used when there is a high risk of the sub/ship is at high risk of being destroyed.

Russia has recently started a policy, very similar to America's; funding pro-Russian organisations in other countries while banning non-government organisations within it's borders. Americans will have great difficulty. And add to that the already strong founded pro-Russian governments in the central asian republics, and Americans can try all they want, but there is little that will come out of it. The FSB is strengthening it's control of the actions of certain governments and politically influential groups abroad.