It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
......The Russians would never use there carrier to attack another carrier battle group, the days of WW2 style carrier engagements are long past.
In todays modern navy, the carrier is in my opinion an obsolete platform.....
I, respectfully, disagree. I think the modern carrier group is about projecting force, no matter who the owners of said carrier fleet might be.
In todays modern navy, the carrier is in my opinion an obsolete platform, here I am only speaking if the carriers were to actually "fight" a real war against a first class adversary, for anything short of an all out war they still have there uses such as force projection and what I would call "gunboat diplomacy", nothing lights a fire up a governments ass quite like having a carrier battle group parked off there coast much like the way battleships were used pre WW2. But just as battleships proved in WW2 that they were extremely vulnerable to attack by aircraft, so I believe that carriers would be shown to be extremely vulnerable against submarines in any future war.
I also agree with another poster that attacking a US battle group would be suicide.
Twenty-three years ago during the 1981 NATO exercise Ocean Venture, an unnamed 1960s vintage Canadian diesel submarine “sank” the carrier USS America without once being itself detected, and a second unidentified vintage sub “sank” the carrier USS Forrestal.
What did we learn from this?
Eight years later, during NATO exercise Northern Star, the Dutch diesel submarine Zwaardvis stalked and “sank” the USS America again. Did the America just have problems? Well, in RIMPAC 1996, the Chilean diesel submarine Simpson “sank” the carrier USS Independence, and in 1999 during NATO exercise JTFEX/TMDI99, Dutch diesel submarine Walrus not only “sank” the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, but also “took out” the American exercise command ship USS Mount Whitney, plus a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, and the nuke fast attack USS Boise – all without herself receiving a scratch.
Then, during RIMPAC 2000, the Australian Collins Class diesel sub HMAS Waller “sank” two American nuke fast attacks and got dangerously close to the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. During Operation Tandem Thrust in 2001, HMAS Waller “sank” two American amphibious assault ships in waters between 200 to 350 feet deep, barely more than the length of the submarine itself, and an unnamed Chilean diesel sub “took out” nuclear fast attack sub USS Montpelier twice during successive exercise runs. A year later in October 2002, HMAS Sheehan successfully hunted down and “killed” the U.S. fast attack USS Olympia during exercises near Hawaii, and just a year ago in September 2003, in an unnamed (read “classified”) exercise, several Collins Class subs “sank” two U.S. fast attack subs and a carrier – all unnamed, of course. And a month later another Collins Class sub surprised and “sank” an American fast attack during another exercise.
Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Currently there are Georgian journalists, in Georgia, who are in the process of being bribed (not bailed!) out of jail because they reported on Saakashvilis’ personal security forces nigh arrests of opposition members. Care for a Fight Club discussion about the social engineering mechanics behind Orange Revolutions?
Pankisi gorge, Shevardnadze assassination attempt, (the ambush in which his armored Mercedes was hit by an RPG), Crimean resorts housing wounded Chechens, etc, care to go there or are we on the same page by now?
Your call, but I do get the drift.
Um, I'm pretty sure I typed in I then r then a, yes they all match, then finished with an "n". Which for those not looking for red herrings, would be next door to Saddam's former presidential seat.
Um, I’m pretty sure US supported Saddams I-raq in the bloody war against I-ran, (not I-pod), so those red herrings can keep minding their business.
Who cares about Sarin (except the Kurds and Japanese) in the 80s
Who cares about zyklon-b (Except for the Jews and Slavs) in the 40s?
when the big issue occupying George W Bush (who, according to wee Jock is roaring for a confrontation with Putin) is Iran's plutonium enrichment programme?
When the big issue was stripping Nazi Germanys advanced technology like Me-262, V1/2, jet/rocket engines, guided missiles etc.
Isn’t it interesting that Soviets had a dedicated recon group which searched and liberated those poor souls from concentration camps while American detachments were occasionally just stumbling on them?
Oh, wait, that just reminded me, hey, Jock, didn't W look Putin in the eye and judge him as "a man to do business with"?
In American English, “doing business” can mean anything from buying a stick of gum to running wars and killing people in their hundreds of thousands like in current Iraq.
iskander, get off the red herrings and actually read what I posted and what it was in response to. What has Saddam and sarin got to do with the US and Russia having a confrontation today?
That has to do with your understanding of provocations.
“And what Russia is doing in and to Georgia isn't enough of a provocation for economic retaliation?
Russia's sale of uranium to Iran isn't enough of a provocation?”
If arming a Mid East tyrant with Chemical weapon of Mass Destruction is not provocation in your opinion, then once again, none of us live in the glass house, so please mind of the rocks when you toss them all about.
And finally, Iskander, when did Saddam gas the Kurds and when did the US promise them air support? Halabja was in the 80s. No-Fly-Zones were next decade.
March 15 1988, South Iraqi Kurdistan, the town of Halabja falls to Peshmerga resistance fighters of Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, who are supported by Iranian revolutionary guards.
The next morning the Kurds were attacked with Chemical weapons, but as history has a tendency to be there for the ones who care to look for it, it was not the first time Kurds were attacked with gas.
Winston Churchill, the idol of western neoconservatives. As Secretary of War and Air and Colonial Secretary, he authorized the RAF in the 1920’s to routinely use mustard gas against rebellious Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq and against Pushtun tribes on the Northwest Frontier.
It gets better. Offitially Saddam was executed for that very reprisal attack.
At the time, Iraq and Iran were locked in the ferocious last battles of their eight-year war. Halabja was caught between the two armies that were exchanging salvos of regular and chemical munitions. Only Iran had cyanide gas. If the CIA official is correct, the Kurds were accidentally killed by Iran, not Iraq.
www.ericmargolis.com...
Hows this:
US Army War College: NO PROOF SADDAM GASSED THE KURDS!
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
It gets better;
not only did Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
So getting back to this;
And finally, Iskander, when did Saddam gas the Kurds
Right here;
According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
Good enough?
My questions are still not answered, while I as always extend the curtsey of answering the questions I’m asked, care to return the gesture or good manners are out of style with you?
Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Yes, I've read a full chronology of the Russian navy. I stand by what I said. Note well my first sentence. The Red Army crushed the Whermacht, the Red Navy did nothing.
My response;
Despite numerical superiority of Germans city was heroically protected by Russian NAVY along with ground forces. Russian NAVY saw many actions during WWII, one of war heroes was Marinesky who torpedoed several large
so Germany ships. His legacy is still very much alive.
The Soviets claimed to have sunk 323 merchant ships for a total of 936,756 tons along with 94 warships including three destroyers, 21 mine-sweepers, one torpedo boat, and a number of submarine chasers.
Postwar records from various Western sources including the Germans show the Soviets sank 108 merchant ships with a tonnage of 254,525 tons. They also sank 28 minor warships none larger than a minesweeper. In fact, the largest warship ever sunk by a Russian submarine was the destroyer HMS Vittoria by the submarine Pantera on 8/31/19 while the Vittoria was at anchor off the Seiskär Islands in the Gulf of Finland.
For this total, the Soviets lost at least 108 (there are discrepancies in their records as to exact losses and causes) submarines in return. Also note, that included in the ships sunk are 20 Turkish merchant vessels operating in that nation's coastal waters.
The run down;
Ships of the Soviet Navy
Summary
408 warships of 6 types.
War losses
According to our files the Soviet Navy lost 137 warships during WWII (33.58%).
A run down on losses suffered by Allied fleets;
Losses by navy:
Royal Navy (647)
US Navy (391)
Soviet Navy (137)
French Navy (93)
Royal Dutch Navy (54)
Royal Hellenic Navy (26)
Royal Canadian Navy (24)
Royal Norwegian Navy (14)
Royal Australian Navy (13)
Polish Navy (12)
Italian Navy (7)
Free French Navy (5)
United States Coast Guard (5)
Brazilian Navy (2)
Royal Indian Navy (2)
The biggest problem for Soviet NAVY was incredibly dense mining of the waters, which inflicted enormous damage to their fleet.
They did not have much of a chance to engage the Germans simply because they were constantly busy clearing all those mines and just getting out to where the fighting is, and while doing that suffering further losses to constant air attacks.
It was the RN slogging through the North Sea and losing men to supply Stalin, Stalin's ships were nowhere to be seen. Of course you could say that about the British Army and Leningrad...The only thing I have to grind is the truth.
Please send some of that truth grinding my way, I’d like to read about it.
““Why do Russians need a Black Sea fleet?” and the Russian commander replied “So we’ll never have to be asked such a question ever again.””
Could they be to do with futile military gestures that cost thousands of lives, then? That would be helpful.
No, that was a direct challenge to the English, telling them straight out that they no longer own the Black Sea.
Fine. The Soviets saw the early devestating effects of the U-Boats on British supply lines across the North Atlantic. The Soviets themsleves did basically squat blue navy-wise in WW2.
And why was that? I got stats, maybe you have something more substantial, so I’d like to see it.
Which is what the American character is pointng out to the British character in the dreadfully bad film adaptation of Len Deighton's Spy Story.
If you’re a Brit I’ll accept that as good humor. If not, a lucky shot is just a good.
pfft. Try understanding the topic. I've seen RN and Icelandic boats hull-scrape. And it was deliberate. That's not a superpower confrontation. It's chest-thumping.
Scraping hulls is one thing but taking critical damage which requires dry-dock repairs is entirely different. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
Soviet pilots fought in Korea. Why didn't Truman put it on the font page of every paper in the world? Why did Harry tell General Clay not to drive to Berlin with a couple of bags of coal in his jeep?
You lost me there. Open confrontation with the Soviets spelled DOOM, and other then fierce resistance Berlin was for the Russians for all the obvious reasons.
Ever seen how long it takes for a seriuosly degraded military (and the Red Army/Navy/AF weren't that good to begin with) to be worked up again?
Yes I did. After total WWI collapse of Germany, with on a decade their war machine was cranking out gear years ahead everyone else.
Their only surprise came in 1941 when they faced Sov tanks and fighters.
No matter how much money you've got.
When you’re being shot at, money is an object of concern only to the ones who are fleeing with sack of it, and to the small time thugs which will run barter based black markets when the occupation forces arrive.
Let’s not dilute our selves here.
Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
Why don't you look at how well they did in Chechnya the first time around. The word was "suddenly". They are still years away from the ability to go anywhere and do anything special.
Not only did I “look” at how they were doing in Chechnya, I worked on some of the IED issues they were having there at the time. You are not up to speed on how things are there currently.
Occasional drive by attacks on CPs and a recent assassination which has more to do with organized crime then political issues.
Really. Then what were all those photos of rusting subs tied alongside in Vladivostok and Ukraine we saw in the late 90s? As I said, if the Kursk couldn't be trusted to operate safely and the rest of the navy couldn't be trusted to fish them out...
Actually I flew to Far East Russia on regular bases and seen it all with my own eyes.
You are simply repeating the usual stereotyped propaganda. Nothing wrong with propaganda when it comes to the masses of sheeple, but if you personally care just look into it.
As far as Ukraine, it was massive plundering.
Corruption, money laundering directly by NY banks, dirty arms smuggling deals, IL-76s with their number painted over, organized crime working hand-in-hand with the “family”, etc
Kursk? Don’t even go there.
The remarks you made make it clear that you simply didn’t that the time to educate your self on the topic thus lacking the basic decency of respect for the lives that were lost, and sacrificed.
Again, if you care to through around such half-baked accretions start a topic and I’ll meet you there.
Originally posted by Tonka
So what your trying to imply here is that while an L.A. could sink a Russian carrier theres no way an Akula could take out an American carrier?
I think your patriotism is blinding your view/common sense.
News flash champ while it is true the Russian sub force lagged behind the Americans in a number of key technological areas throughout the cold war, by the 1980's Russian subs were more than a match and in a lot of cases superior to American subs, dont believe me?
Heres what your own government departments had to say on the subject in 1996:
The second generation Akulas were recognised as a better boat than the 688i's even by your own navy/government, there faster,quieter, dive deeper and are better armed than there American equivalents!
(Anyone that tries to compare seawolf or virginia to akula dont waste your time, the akula predates both, compare them against Severodvinsk class)
And who said it would be an Akula attacking? The Russians built a whole class of SSGN's with the primary roll of taking out CBG's, currently the Oscar 2's. There P700 Granit anti-ship missiles have a range of 5 to 600 km's. As Iskander said these misiles are fired in swarms and communicate with each other via datalink to prioritize there targets!
Granit Anti-Ship missile
American CBG's have been caught with there pants down a number of times, the Chinese did it not that long ago with a bloody diesel electric!
Heres the link
Both the Asheville and the Seawolf were in the region though no-one from the U.S. Navy has stated what they were doing while the Kitty Hawk got raped.
Oh then theres always HMAS Waller that drilled 2 ( thats right TWO) 688's
Now, what were you saying about your CBG's anti submarine training?
I don't care. That has nothing to do with what I said. It has nothing to do with my reply to Jarheadjock. It is just another red herring.
Alias:
Ignoratio Elenchi ("ignorance of refutation", Latin)
Irrelevant Thesis
Type: Informal Fallacy
Etymology:
The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Exposition:
This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy.
And what Russia is doing in and to Georgia isn't enough of a provocation for economic retaliation?
Russia's sale of uranium to Iran isn't enough of a provocation?
Again, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the topic.
No, you don't. You've demonstrated that repeatedly. Jarheadjock said the US and Russia were "raoring for a confrontation", his words. Well, I asked why current Russian activity hadn't been enough of a provocation for a president who is famous for six-gun diplomacy. Clearly the US is not "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.
Again, I don't care (in terms of this discussion) what the US did with Saddam. That is a completely separate issue. Stop trying to drag it in here, where we are discussing Jarheadjock's assertion that the US is "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.
Russia's sale of uranium to Iran isn't enough of a provocation?
Exactly my point. Why did you bring it up? It has nothing to do with Jarheadjock's assertion that...I hope by now you are starting to follow.
Really? The US is, according to Jarheadjock, "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia over who stole more during Operation Paperclip? My, what a long memory you have, Grandma...
Wasn't it interesting that the Soviets invaded Poland in 1939 and executed thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn woods? Get back on topic.
No, it means he can be trusted to be democratic and also not get in the way of US interests. But I specifically brought it up because Jarheadjock asserted that...
No. It has to do with your misunderstanding the current discussion and so does the next bit.
Arming a mid-east tyrant in the eighties has nothing to do with Jarheadjock's assertion that the US and Russia are "roaring for a confrontation" now. George is currently trying to do for Iran and uranium enrichment what he did for Saddam and WMDs. So, why, then, isn't Putin selling uranium to Ahmedinijad this week enough of a provocation? Especially given that, according to Jarheadjock, the US is "roaring for a confrontation" with Russia.
Thank you. Didn't see the CIA anywhere in that. Or US promises of air-support.
Wow. My, what an amazingly long and yet unsurprisingly useless memory you have Grandma. Now you've brought a long-dead British Prime Minister's actions from BEFORE he was PM into an argument about the CURRENT presidents of Russia and the US.
Saddam shelled Halabja in retaliation for RAF bombings in the '20s? My, what a long memory HE had, grandma.
And George W, Vlad P and bull-roarers fit into that where, exactly?
Thank you. 1985 through 1989. When is it that the US and Russia, according to Jarheadjock, are "roaring for a confrontation"? I'm pretty sure my calendar says 21/12/07 today.
And finally, Iskander, when did Saddam gas the Kurds and when did the US promise them air support? Halabja was in the 80s. No-Fly-Zones were next decade.
As I said, your questions are of zero relevance to Jarheadjock's assertion that the US and Russia are "roaring for a confrontation. Which is the point you keep missing. The US' dealings with Saddam have nothing to do with Russia's dealings with Ahmedinijad.
No, I was thinking more of the continued situation vs-a-vis Abhkazia and there was that little piece of trade suppression vis-a-vis Georgian wine, but if you want to talk about internal Georgian matters, rather than Russian interference in Georgia, go right ahead...
Saddam is a completely off-topic red herring that is wasting everybody's time. As is Mikhail Saakashvilli's attempts to muzzle free speech. At no point did I champion Saakashvilli. All I did was highlight Russia's treatment of Georgia. Russian "peacekeepers" in Georgia are a separate issue to Georgian internal dissent in Tbilisi.
Wrong. their first surprise was in 1940 whan they couldn't kill Matilda 1 tanks. And Soviet fighters in 1941 were no match for 109s and 190s. Neither were Soviet tanks. the T 34 was not yet the standard front-line tank of the USSR. In 1941 *all* the victories were German.
Really? When you have no transport because you have no funds, when you have no armour because you have no funds money is of incredibly high concern to grunts being shot at.
I said "first time around", not "currently". Tell me, what happened to the first batallion into Grozny?
Which wouldn't be happening to "your" proxies if you hadn't gone back in. No, I don't intend to debat Chechen adventures in the last two decades, suffice it to say it was no hippy commune of free love immediately before Putin re-invaded in '99.
That doesn't explain what all those boats were doing covered in rust. Or say anything about Vladivostok.
Why not? It's purely relevant.
Really? Well, take the time and educate me, then.
Go right ahead. You're the one who wants to edumacate me.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by Tonka
Yes, our Collinses are the newest boats in the world. And being diesels, they are quieter than nukes.
You'll note that I specifically left "other" navies and their boats out of the equation.
News flash champ while it is true the Russian sub force lagged behind the Americans in a number of key technological areas throughout the cold war, by the 1980's Russian subs were more than a match and in a lot of cases superior to American subs, dont believe me?
No, not entirely.
Heres what your own government departments had to say on the subject in 1996:
Again with all these assumptions about my Americanness...why is that? I never make assumptions about YOUR Americanness. Or lack of it. Anyway...
Heres the link
That's okay, the Australian government just told itself (well, the previous one did) that F-18EF was the best available strike-fighter in the world. I usually take about 10-15% off the top of these "prophet of doom" exercises because I hold the opinion that the military is its own lobby in the US, painting the picture darker than it is so it can get new toys. But that's just my personal quirk...
Now, what were you saying about your CBG's anti submarine training?
Well, it was a bloody long time ago, these days, when you consider that HMAS Melbourne was retired in 1982.
This has been an.... interesting read.
Lets try to stick to the situation in the Mediterrenean and the topic.
Uh-huh. And Phalanx, Goalkeeper and the like would have nothing to say about anti-ship missiles? Let alone CAP and AWACS...Now you've just brought the air-defence frigates squarely into the equation, not the ASW boats.