Who would've won the cold war if it went hot

Discussion in 'History' started by fedr808, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    When a couple of dozen or even more come in (which was the planned Soviet tactic - swamp the target with everything) chaff would have been pretty limited.

    More effective?
    What's the old naval maxim - don't hit above the waterline - letting water in is more effective than letting air in.

    And far more (under good conditions).
    But still usually much shorter than launch range for the big Soviet SSN launched missiles.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Tsar Bomba..
    may she always be so beautiful.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    stfu pj, I thought i already made that clear with your last comment on this thread!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well for starters I've played a few sub and sea simulation games, as stupid and idiotic that sounds these were made by experianced naval officers or should I say retired ones that started up this gaming company called sonalysts, I play dangerous waters but they use weaponry based off the real thing same with sensors.

    And here are the problems with missile attacks.

    1.) Most ships have atleast 6 chaff dispensors on either side of the ship, missiles dont detonate on contact with the chaff they just fly through and as soon as they do that they lose all contacts on their seeker heads and self destruct as per the safety feature. So swampin an enemy with missiles wont work because every missile will go for the chaff.

    2.) The anti missile defences are extremely sophisticated. In my simulations playing against a hard enemy the effective range of any sub launched or ship launched anti ship missile was a meager 5 nautical miles, because otherwise the target ship not only has time for chaff but also time to enable cwis mounts, and anti air missiles and send them on the target and blow up the missile.

    3.) If you swamp the enemy with a dozen missiles one oliver hazard perry will probably shoot most of them down if you use them at standoff range. Because of the chaff and anti air and cwis defence systems probably 2 or 3 will get through. The reason why is that the air defense missiles are loaded one by one onto a launcher so the rate of fire for said missiles are not very good.

    The instant you bring and Aegis destroyer into the battle all bets are off. Because of the fact that it has the missile defense system using what was it 80ish vertical launchers, the rate of fire could be incredible and it could easily shoot down all of those dozen or so missiles at standoff range. But the problem is that these missiles since fired vertically arch up than down meaning that if a missile is fired within 10 nm, chances are the AEGIS wont hit it, but the oliver Hazard Perry will.


    Missiles and torpedos are given much more credit than they deserve.
     
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    As per;

    "China's Aircraft Carrier Ambitions: Seeking Truth from Rumors." Storey, I.; Ji, Y. Naval War College Review. Winter 2004, Vol. 57, No. 1.

    Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov (Russian: Адмирал флота Советского Союза Кузнецов, (originally named Riga, renamed Leonid Brezhnev then Tbilisi[1]) is an aircraft carrier (heavy aircraft carrying cruiser (TAVKR) in Russian classification) serving as the flagship of the Russian Navy. She was originally commissioned in the Soviet Navy, and was intended to be the lead ship of her class, but the only other ship of her class.

    And the Russians don't consider it a Aircraft Carrier, they call it a, "tyazholiy avianesushchiy kreyser " heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser.

    The Soviets and Russian never really had a aircraft carrier, they had Aircraft carrying Cruisers, and their tactical use was not as Aircraft Carriers.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
  9. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Actually I was going to suggest you get hold of Harpoon by Larry Bond.

    And then try a Soviet-era swamping attack - ALL missiles fired at the same time.

    Keep trying, a handful of dozens or even a hundred at a time WILL swamp a NATO surface action group.
    That's why the Soviets put all their missiles in single launchers - to be fired simultaneously, as opposed to the West that has many reloads but fewer launchers.
    You run into cycle time and target-handling problems with multiple targets.
     
  10. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Actually the new systems for Nato have a faster launch cycle than the Soviet Systems.

    And if my information on the AGIS systems are correct they can handle and target a 100 incoming targets.

    Now what do you thing is going to happen to a Soviet Fleet that becomes big enough to do a system saturation launch?

    They have to gather to do so, and would we sit back and let them put a force that size together with out a preemptive counter strike.
     
  11. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Actually he's right that "stealthy" aircraft often create radar returns that make them look like birds; but when the flock of birds is moving at 100+ mph, that's a pretty damn big clue that it's not really a bird. Aircraft have minimum speeds, and those minimums are all well over anything a bird would be able to do.

    Edit: As for shooting missiles at ships/carriers, I think it's understood that in the even of a real war the russians would have been shooting nuclear-armed missiles at the US surface groups, which don't even really need to get close in order to damage or destroy the ships. Chaff etc. isn't going to be much help, because the missiles don't really even need to actually approach the target.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
  12. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    a flat top is a flat top. and at 65,000 tons she is a mid sized carrier which is used differently than the light carriers(20,000 tons) of the british and the super carriers(90,000+ tons) we use. But it is still a carrier and would be used as such. Just look at the french charles de gualle for instance.
     
  13. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    Yeah I don't really get why Russia has only 1 aircraft carrier...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    :bugeye:

    I guess we have more belief in missiles doing the job. :shrug:
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    because you can't afford more
     
  15. WA Lancer Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Tactical nukes need to get close to get any kill at all. And when you shoot down a nuke it will not go full strength fission reaction on you, And it will not go fusion on you. Thermal Nuclear bombs are very complicated and you cant just shoot one to make it go boom.

    Tac nukes just are not powerful enough to take down ships from ranges outside their defense perimeter. If you can get a strategic nuke to detonate near the battle group then it is a different story. The ships would tend to melt.

    But this discussion is about non nuclear war.

    So once on full alert status the carrier group is well defended.
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Yah but the rules on this thread are no nukes. Because nukes are kind of cheap for this debate.
     
  17. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    But the western reload launchers are only on the Oliver Hazard Perry class.

    The problem with your tactic is that the Aegis destroyers could easily fire multiple intercept missiles at your missiles far, far before your missiles enable.

    And also, chaff works on ALL missiles not just one but every missile pointing that direction so a cloud of chaff sent up by 30 or so launchers from different ships would make an utterly tremendous target.

    Anyways, no offense but i find it hard to believe that the soviets had ships that could fire that many missiles simultaneously.

    You see the swamping attack doesnt work because we can swamp you with more missiles than you can shoot. each AEGIS comes with 90 missiles. half being tomahawks, half being SM-2's.

    So if there are three AEGIS's guarding a carrier which is not a stretch to believe, they could easily shoot down 100 missiles, and send another 135 heading straight to you. And considering that your ships were loaded completely with anti ship missiles, id like to see you shoot down the tomahawks.
     
  18. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Keep trying, MOST Western ships during the cold war didn't have VLS cells but single or twin-arm launchers.

    Again, keep trying:
    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-spy-1.htm
    Doesn't matter how many reloads you have - you have to knock the targets down that you've engaged before you can launch against the rest.
    How close are the others going to be when you re-engage?

    Yup, and nobody that launched chaff ever[/i[ got hit did they?

    Then look again: Soviet warships have all of their ASMs in single launchers for the sole reason of being able to fire them all at once.

    That would be why CIWS is still so popular then?
    AEGIS is part of a layered defensive system - if there are enough missiles coming in some will get through that's a fact of life.

    No system has yet achieved 100% effectiveness.
    And have another look - Soviet warships have/ had separate systems for ASW/ ASuW and AAW.
     
  19. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706


    Yah but this is all assuming that the planes from the carriers have not yet already fired missile after missile at the Russian fleet well before the Russians get in range right?

    And that the Los Angelos class attack submariens have not already unloaded what like 20 someodd harpoons and tomahawks on the Russian fleet?

    Lets face it that so long as the aircraft carriers are there and control the skies the US can just keep sending planes that will fire standoff missiles well before you get into range.

    And this is all assuming you KNOW where the carrier is. Because the fact is that since the carrier has scout planes chances are the scout planes are going to find your fleet WAY before you detect the US fleet.
     
  20. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Um, check on Soviet strategy/ tactics - the attack on the US fleet would have been the de facto declaration of war: in other words the US wouldn't have the planes up and armed.

    See above.

    And even if that happened there'd be far fewer incoming missiles for the Soviets to deal with so some ships would get through.

    AGIs?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_ship
    RORSATS?
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/RORSAT.html
     
  21. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well for one thing the Los Angelos class submarines trail the russian fleets remember? It aint that ahrd for them to sink the fleet if it is trailing their baffles.

    Also you are assuming that the US only has one aircraft carrier, thats not true they have 10 major aircraft carriers, there is not a chance in hell the soviets have the resources to engage more than two at any point in time.

    And also, sure your ships will get through, but that doesn't matter because you still dont know where the American surface fleet is located and all the whil more planes with missiles are sinking more and more of your ships.

    Sure you can carry all of the missiles in the world, but if one you cant find your enemy and two your out of range, they are all useless.
     
  22. wise acre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    726
    Cockroaches would have won.
    Humans would have lost.
     
  23. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    How many of them at a time?
    And don't forget Soviet ships carried ASW helos.

    I'm assuming nothing, how many carrier groups need to be knocked out before the survivors become very careful?

    AGIs.
    RORSATs.
    And Soviet subs.

    AGIs.
    RORSATs.
    And Soviet subs.
     

Share This Page