it was a hole bomber wing they didn't launch close but from very far away and they didn't sink her just burned her. yet yes this could happen 1 time maybe 2 or 3 if done right. Russian missile tech is much better the u.s in most areas.
Жаль, что россия не продала С-300 (хотя может не официально и продала). Я очень хочу увидить их в действии. Надоели вечные споро у кого длинее. Пора проверять в боевых действиях. Да, у ирана не только вооружение с совка, есть и западное, и соременное российское.
забавно что почти у всех диктаторов в мире уружие в ссср или россии.
@Impulse116 Да, я тоже хочу увидеть, на что способны результаты многолетней гонки вооружений. однако, это будет война не малая, если подключится Китай. РФ конечно не будет открыто воевать, но поможет оружием, я уверен. Конечно, у всех разные взгляды на политические элиты мировых держав, нет сомнений в том, что политическую элиту США также можно назвать диктатурой. Это как говорится, разные мнения. Оружие США также кстати есть и было у диктаторов, это не секрет..
@Impulse116 of corse, this is soviet movie, but we (russian) have another weapon, for yours escorts and US Aircrafts. Realy, just look any documentary movies "Udarnaya Sila"
Давай смотреть правде в лицо. Вооружение США лутче и его больше.
Если в россии есть что-то охренезное, то количество его единиц можно на пальцах перещитать.
США всегда будет хоть на один шаг, но впереди. Там много денег идет на оборонку, а в россии в карманы абрамовичей. Разве что ЗРК на его яхте сможет что-то сбить.
@Impulse116 Я бы поспорил, чье оружие лучше. Что касается количества - в этом не сомневаюсь, Россия еще лет 10 будет догонять США, если не будет ядерной войны. Охренеозного у нас уже достаточно, но об этом мало кто знает, есть режимы секретности, ты же понимаешь, сам, вижу, из Киева.. Абрамовичей у нас немного по сравнению с США, там вообще стоимость гайки в тендере Пентагон оценивал помню, в 1000 долларов, чтоль.. Вот это откатная система, нам еще до нее расти и расти)))
Я сам работаю в сфере ремонта самолетов, так вот обычный крючек который у нас делают за 5 долларов, оригинальный стоит 800 баксов,
А гайки некоторые до 300 баксов. И это то что уже снято с производства. Новые на новые самолеты спокойно могут стоить 1000. Даже мелочь всякая стоит до 100 баксов, цена котороый вроде бы максимум пару баксов.
@Impulse116 я не супергайку имел ввиду, там и швабры на авианосцы закупались по ценам, что какбэ из красного лакированного дерева)) Ну да ладно, проехали. Конечно, сырьевая база у нас хромает, ну это ожидаемо, развалили страну и алкаш был у власти 10 лет почти. Ну, ничего, где наша не пропадала. Будем догонять, думаю.
Sorry but you'll never fly that close a US Aircraft carrier, those fuckers have more SAM batteries than you'd imagine. They'll start launching ungodly amounts of missles before you're even 50 miles close to it.
@lmos26 My friend, if you want to see what an ungodly amout of SAM is look out the kirov battlecruiser, 394 AA missiles i think.
And those missiles are standoff missiles, that can be launched way earlier than 50 miles. Those in particular are Raduga Kh-22, with a range of 220 nautical miles.
Who the fuck gave the iranian some Tu-22 backfire including Sunburns?! wake up my american friends. Phalanx can't care about so fast incoming missiles. 10 may be 15 sunburns and every synchron formation and every carrier is history. Carriers are only big swimming targets...
Firstly, the E-3 Hawkeye would detect the Tu 22's long before they get in range and datalink this info to the carrier. Tu 22s are huge aircraft with a large radar signature. The CAP of F/A 18s would shoot them down, again, long before the could launch these missiles. Secondly, Hollywood "forgets" that NO US Carrier is alone. She is escorted by at least one cruiser and 2 destroyers. Both our cruisers and destroyers have the MK 41 VLS launchers to defeat missiles & Bombers! Nice try Hollywood!
Meh...this is somewhat realistic as it shows what would happen if a squadron of undetected aircraft managed to get close enough to fire ASM missiles. As previously stated in other posts US carriers have a screen of aircraft 500-700 miles out to prevent undetected aircraft getting within firing range. But like the video shows, IF someone managed to get close enough to fire missiles, AND they fire enough missiles to overwhelm our PHALANX, the ship is fucked beyond doubt.
Fucking video... Not logic at all... No any aircraft or battle ship can near with the carrier in 300 km... The carrier will launch the fighter F-18 to warning the aircraft or ship 1st... If the enemy attack the fighter... F-18 will punishing they with an attack or destroyed...
justement des avions russes aurais pu couler 4 porte avion si il l aurais voulue sibole 4 milliards le prix deds porte avion pis pas foutu de voir un avion en approche bravo GANG DE TARLAT D AMERICAINS
Bande de taré de ricains les Russes auraient dû vous fumer votre gueule car il le pouvait, mais ça va ptet revenir et on entendra moins votre grande gueule !!
WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS RUSSIAN FLYOVER TAKES NAVY BY SURPRISE? Ship personnel say incident more serious threat than Pentagon admits Published: 12/07/2000
Particularly during the Cold War, Soviet Naval Aviation became very well trained at tactics they would use to take out US carriers. Read either this book or "Red Storm Rising" to find some good examples of how.
@sargeanb There are a few flaws in this plan. One, TU-22 would have a hard time approaching an aircraft carrier without being intercepted. In the movie they have no fighter escort, F-14's and F-18's are a Carriers first line of defense. If they pass that line they would be intercepted by Aegis Cruisers, then Sea Sparrow missile and finally the CWIS in the movie. This is a very bad plan. It would be more understandable if they used long ranged ballistic missiles in an overwhelming mass
@gearbox011 I reality there had been 100 Backfire than 2 Oskar with 250 missiles fired from diferent angels away from the faighter escort radar coverage.
200 missiles traveling at mach 4-5 reaches the carrier group after a few minutes picking out the most important goals, 1 missile is enough to sink a cruiser, 3 for aircraft carrier.
A normal aircraft carrier group can not keep firing enough missiles and ECM to prevent the hit, the would be happy about 90-95% will be shot down:)
@starknight97 Next turn is the 10 submarines that fire the same amount of missiles, etc.
Is not as simple as saying, "our fleet is the largest, we have 11 aircraft carrier groups'
War is asymmetric with more than one angle in the calculation, the enemy does not build a force to compete with the U.S., they are building a force to combat it.
@MrCastodian by then carrier groups would join up have 2 or 3 groups as giving 12 to 36cruisers and even more missiles frigates. Radar plans be airborne.Sub hunting copper looking too. so in sort their be enough too shot down even that many missile which take allot more then 10 subs but the hole 60 plus active ballistic missile sub fleet. Then uses maybe you could do 2 at one time in a surprise attack that's 9+the mini carriers alive.Now they hunt ever boat or plane in the ocean.
@starknight97 Sounds good in theory, had it been so easy, there had been a long time ago, the U.S. is not as superior as you might think.
You give the theoretical numbers, in practice they does not gathered several aircraft carrier forces in the same place for fear of tactical nuclear strike that could come, and 36 cruisers?
You live in the belief that everything the U.S. does at will be 100% successful, but you have not the faintest idea about the effect of 100 incoming missiles.
@MrCastodian true but a tatical nuke in this case is a less of a worry 3 groups of 3 still give a spread out tactic. then the sm-3 can down any ballistic nuke in bound with the aegis system. no it not and you clearly wrong cause i can see how you get 1 maybe 2 carriers at a very high cost. with 3 fleet combined they be fare spread out now with a sea-wolf around at this point. Radar planes be air-borne and surface skimmer don't help their. then most though bombers be dead too.
@MrCastodian don't forget they have too deal with 3 seawolfs and 12 Virginia class hunting them that are red October subs or totally undetectable. No Russia don't have the navel power too do it any more.
@MrCastodian then remember though bomber would all die as the f18's have nothing else to do but run them down before they run out fuel from the first strike. Same goes for the subs if they did a strike with a good chance the Virginia class sub that protects the carrier group see them first.
@MrCastodian because it like the sea wolf though as bit smaller. A totally quit sub passive sonar do nothing too see it. With no carrier to go home too though f18 turn burn for though bombers and bears are very slow and huge targets. only the super sonic stand a chance of getting away. the f18's in patrol don't their always a few up minus very bad weather. in the water yes it is huge number very advanced tech. Seawolfs & Virginia rule under the ocean and carrier rule the surface.
In ww2, German bombers flying from bases in southern France, attacked an Italian Navy force using the first anti-shipping missiles in history: the Fritz-X radio controlled missile. With only 2 Fritz-X bombs, the Germans destroyed a 45,000 ton new battleship "Roma", with huge loss of life. Now imagine two of these huge, +Mach 2, 3 or 4 ASMs hitting a carrier or any other major war vessel today; i´think they can destroy anything.
I think it was raining, so no F-22 can't do crap. Why didn't they use a Tu-22M that would have completly have sunk the carrier in a single or two shot(s)!
I love the realism in this scene (god forbid this would ever happen) - i like how the Phalanx doesn't destroy every missile but it still did it's best. "They practically sank an aircraft carrier!"
@CAinfowarrior There is no realism in it really. Its just for a show. In reality those missiles launched beyond visual range and travel at 5 speeds of sound. Its in fact faster than a phalanx shell. You wont really see them coming
Unless you think the missile is faster than light, it WILL be seen on radar. And the Phalanx shell's speed makes no difference, it will still hit the missile before impact, as it was designed to do.
@RetSquid It's always nice to meet people like you, who browse the internets to prove everywhere that america is awesomest in everything. small hint for you: i wasn't even talking about capabilities of the phalanx. just imagine how sick you are!
So when you said, "Its in fact faster than a phalanx shell.", someone had hijacked your keyboard? I did not mention anything about America, just physics.
@RetSquid I'll try to make it clear for you one last time. My post wasn't about who is better, phalanx or aircraft carrier or anything else. but there are always ppl like you, with a massive ego and no personal achievements. to feed their ego, they participate in the special olympics, trying hard to prove everywhere that they are living in the best country and have best of everything. it makes them feel better. yes, i am talking about you. you are sick! sick! sick!
@petunized Of course, everyone's missing the point. An aircraft carrier, with no escort, sailing within range of enemy land-based bombers during an international incident? A crew that stupid deserves to have their ship sunk.
@AINGELPROJECT667 zealots like you don't have an "opinion" Opinion is something based on facts and inferences from those facts. You are too fanatical and egocentric to SEE facts, and too stupid to make inferences. What you call "opinion" is just a religious "belief"
And this itch you are having to argue all over the internets about the things you have no clue in whatsoever. Oh boy! :)
@petunized the reality is - in a situation like sum of all fears the Carrier would have it's E2Cs in the air. The backfires would never get close enough to fire. Phalanx is last line of defense The carriers screening cruisers are almost certainly carrying SM2ERs or SM3s. The bombers would be toast
@jdluntjr76226 muhhahaaa! :) another youtube air warfare expert with butthurt and 7 classes of education. finish the school first, kid. by talking about things you have no clue in, you are making yourself a clown.
@petunized What's the matter? Is there a problem with someone else possibly being right? Tell me, what makes you such an expert in air warfare? You're not doing yourself any good by replying negatively to peoples' comments on here and insulting them.
@petunized I have over 16 years service in the military so my knowledge goes a little beyond Hollywood. Also don't tell me to do something better with myself when its clear that you're the one with nothing better to do.
@alexandermakrianis notice: i am not the one who is pestering you with my stupid emails. wanna prove who is right and who is wrong? I see the special olympics is raging all over the comments. please feel free to join! Don't hold it inside! just don't write me anymore. over.
@petunized yes you will your right though the missile faster but they are going head on. then radar the speed of light. with boat having some of the biggest radar ranges with radar plans too add more yet. Even the slower intercept missiles could hit though fast missiles. then this attack only work once
@starknight97 another clown... why do you have to prove everywhere that everything american is super duper? what sort of butthurt have you got? do you understand that by talking on subjects you have no clue in, and know about only from a TV show, you making yourself a clown? and sadly, not even a funny one.
but anyway, please welcome to the circus in the comments. i see there are other "experts" like you with opposite views, so you have plenty to talk about.
@petunized Well, in reality, you would. US satellites would fully observe the bombers leaving base and when in combat, they always have an E-2 2000 flying overhead. They would see the bombers before they could even launch the missiles. And those missiles do not fly at Mach 5, or hypersonic speeds.
@franknbeans4761 More and more clowns into the circus! Cmon! don't be shy! Come right there, in the center of the arena. Share your expertise in air warfare with us. We all really want to know school kids opinion about the subject.
@petunized Regardless of who I am, refute what I said. And with my experience, I do know what I am talking about.
Regardless, there are no fully active missiles that travel at hypersonic speeds. And all current missiles that travel Mach 3-4 only have ranges of 100-400 km. Well within carrier defenses.
@franknbeans4761 "with my expertise" muhahhaha!! :) another youtube 14 y o expert. i am glad you've joined the special olympics and are now happy. there is one important thing to remember though: even if you won the comment death match, you are still retarded. so better go concentrate on your home work. and try to get more classes on hard science. no good would come to you from those ego matches over the internet.
@petunized YouTube is a good way to spread information. I am currently in college and I'm an Officer Candidate for the Marine Corps. What training do you have?
@franknbeans4761 "Officer Candidate for the Marine Corps" meh. that definitely makes you an expert in radiolocation and rocketry. How can't you see that you are just a fucking clown?
Test: Please calculate the RCS of a 1 square meter plane with its normal facing a radar emitting 3GHz wave.
@petunized I am not saying I am an expert in radiolocation and rocketry. But what I do know that in terms of high Mach missiles, the RCS of a missile is not always relevant. It is never fully facing it's target, and certainly not carrier escorts. And in combat missions, US carriers always have an E-2 flying overhead, looking at the broad side of missiles.
And the E-2D will be able to guide SAM's to missiles.
Either way, Mach 3-4 missiles only have 100-400 km ranges. Fact.
@franknbeans4761 Where do you get that what you are calling "facts"? but whatever, its pointless to argue with ppl like you. you are too stupid to understand some arguments, and your ego is too big to accept anything that may hurt it.
Both of this factors dont even allow you to understand that you are just a big kid. A grown up person wont argue about subjects they know about only from a brainwashing TV show.
@petunized Really? A Kh-22 has a top range of 400 km, depending on altitude, and a speed of Mach 4.
In any real combat situation, the US would be having full observation on Russian bomber bases and would be aware if any large bomber formation or even if a few bombers leave.
That and with the E-2, plenty of time would be given to launch fighters and intercept the bombers before launching the missiles.
After all, the Rhino has a combat radius of 722 km in interdiction missions.
@franknbeans4761 ahhh i knew it was futile. but than thought you may get some of what i said and reconsider your behavior. i still see some hope in ppl like you. and you keep disappointing me.
keep going kid! tell me about optimus prime guarding every US air carrier. do your performance, cheap clown!
@petunized Saying "clown" doesn't help your credibility whatsoever.
You didn't refute what I said at all. And there is nothing ridiculous about what I said.
Why wouldn't the carriers be guarded by their own aircraft? Are you mad?
On May 8, 2009, an E-2D guided a SM-6 to an overland cruise missile in a test and successfully intercepted it. The E-2D is projected to enter service in 1-2 years.
@franknbeans4761 "daddy! daddy! optimus prime will beat the inceptikon, he has a nice big gun! ... refute what i said!"
the very fact that you are saying it reveals that you are just a kid.
:) the funny shit is that i wasn't even saying what is better, but butthurted like you simply HAVE to prove that everything american is super duper. Everywhere! All over the internet! everything that has comments, soon going to be overwhelmed with your mental diarrhea.
@petunized You are bitter about something, that is obvious.
Obviously CBG's have their weaknesses. Particularly to submarines. But in terms of missile attacks and instances like this video, it is not as realistic as it seems.
I never once hinted US equipment is invincible like some people do. I was correcting your ignorance.
@petunized Haha is that really the best you can come up with when sombody makes you look like a huge retard. Then you go and help them by doing it to yourself hahaha what a joke you are. What's next mom jokes or will you just cry all day.
@MrWinnerwinnerwinner yeah i was just talking about ppl like you. going all around youtube to participate in yelling matches. trying hard to prove that everything american is uber. A canonical example of a looser without any personal achievements.
@petunized Oh daddy! Again you look like a fool you must have nothing to be proud of as we do if it bothers you so much prove other wise since your such a winner lol. And yes I will always go from site to site telling americas military power and nobody can stop our eagle. You expect not to see our comments hello look at the site and page you are on dumdum.its like going to a car show and getting mad cause there's cars there what are you 4yrs old
@MrWinnerwinnerwinner "as we do" hahhaha :) who do you mean by "we" your majesty? you personally are just a whole lot of nothing. an internet laughing-stock. what part is it of yours in making america better? "I will always go from site to site telling americas military power" so you are just another sick internet warrior. bye-bye!
and yeah, you nick name says it all ;) Mr big time looser.
@ViciousCritique Well, I am about to receive my commission as an officer. I'm doing Marine PLC, I just need to finish school. Although I am not in active duty yet, being a candidate still, I will be soon.
When I saw this scene in the movie I couldn't stop laughing. An American carrier is just going to sit and do nothing when attacked. Well, that's what it would take for this to happen. A ready alert f-4 Tomcats would have splashed these fools no less than 500 miles away. That's the safety zone for a US carrier. Are Russians really stupid enough to believe this could happen? Not very many I would think.
@tdfisk : What the Russians might believe doesn´t matter...what matters is the battle record of the anti-shipping missile. Do your research, it shouldn´t be difficult for you to get the whole picture real fast. These missiles have been used only a few times, in limited numbers, and their effectiveness -and lethality- is more than proven. Start where things started: the German Fritz-X and Henschel missiles of ww2 and the number of British and U.S. ships those toys destroyed or crippled.
@vonkaunaz There's research and then there's real life. All weapons are effective and lethal, but only if they hit their target. Your country fired all 2 of your Exocet at the British, only 1 hit and that's because the ship's radar was shut off. Western counter measures today can blow missiles out of the sky. Russian and Chinese equipment is pure crap, not a real threat. Anti ship missiles may look impressive, but they sure won't take out a US carrier.
@tdfisk Sow rnge of rockets is 400kM before they all took of the carier they will be shooting rockets and go back 2 base its a surprise atack like pearl harbor if u see the move they was not expecting it im patriot 2
@caspernok Military ships at sea are always expecting an attack, especially US carrier task forces. They are constantly on the alert and scanning a thousand mile radius. Low altitude aircraft and missiles would be detected and destroyed. There are also escort ships that were missing in the movie. Recently the news stated the super carrier George Washington went through the Strait of Hormuz flanked by British and French ships, Carriers are always well protected.
@caspernok PS. In reality there are no circumstances where Russia would ever directly attack the US and vice versa, The reasons are obvious, as you stated. That in itself makes the scene in this video totally absurd. It's just a silly movie and people who take movies too seriously are not in touch with reality.
I don't remember this from the book - read it a long time ago (great book, though!). I DO remember this happening in Red Storm Rising (one of my favorite books of all time). In that book the soviets launched a mess of older cruise missiles from Badgers first to draw out the Tomcats. Then a massive wave of Backfires came in behind and launched a couple hundred longer range missiles. The fleet spent it's compliment of AMM's and 2 hit the... Nimitz? Can't remember for sure.
Please, i never mentioned this movie. I talk about historical facts: the ASM has a devastating combat record in the few occasions it´s been used: mainly ww2 used by the Germans, and in the Falklands used by Argentina. Yes a CVN might carry advanced defenses, but it reminds me of the Norden bombsight carried by the B-17 in ww2, the contractor claiming it "could hit a pickle barrel from 30,000 ft", the thing was joke once in combat, and only because of the huge number of bombers you hit anything.
Soviet Airborne ASMs are freaking huge. It's not like a harpoon or exocet. The simple impact of one of those monsters could easily sink a cruiser.
They were precisely designed to sink Aircraft Carrier groups. The moment a Tu-22 or a Tu-95 gets a lock on radar, that's it. Radar Horizon is their range
That's why USA developed the F-14 and the Phoenix missiles. Without them, they're sitting ducks for the Soviet Air Force.
Its a movie guys, the seen was pretty epic but full of factual errors, like stated carriers are never alone we have carrier strike groups, multiple ships with different roles, there's a destroyer devoted in a carrier strike group just to air defense he would have found them on radar and had missile and alert aircraft launched far before those jets would have been in range. But that's the basic idea of how a carrier would defend its self very lastly with the anti missile gun.
@MrGeforcerFX ASMs are extremely lethal, whoever might deploy them. Their record is absolutely devastating: as early as in ww2, used in limited numbers by the Luftwaffe, they sank and crippled a large number of enemy warships, including capital ships -batlleships like the Roma (sunk) and the HMS Warspite (crippled for months). In the Flaklands, used in limited numbers by Argentina, they scored lethal hits on British vessels. As for the latest Russian ones, expect even higher power of destruction
@vonkaunaz i now there deadly hence why the US navy uses advance radar to detect aircraft far far out, the tu-22 would have to go up against a barrage of long distance SAMs and a air attack from the carrier itsself. But your correct there deadly, which is why we also use them.
@MrGeforcerFX : Correct. But also don´t forget ASMs can also be launched from land sites as well. I believe that when the U.S. Navy faces an enemy using latest ASMs, it will be proven that the super carriers are obsolete. Those huge ASMs are capable of destroying a CVN, or at least crippling it with huge loss of life on board. Read articles of the fate of the Italian battleship Roma when it was attacked by German bombers nearly 70 years ago, it can help us imagine what a modern-day ASM can do.
@vonkaunaz but the entire concept of a ASM is still flawed, its radar controlled, and there are major electronic warfare weapons in a carrier strike group, the US navy has definitely foreseen these as a problem and has done a ton of things to prevent them from being effective. A carrier can launch attack aircraft against ground ASM's eliminating them and still have enough aircraft to defend itself against airborne attack. Not to mention the other onboard defensive weapons this mov didn't show
@vonkaunaz noo to many factors really, guess i was just amazed at how easy the video made it look, when in reality the NAVY has feared those things from there invention and has spent countless R & D hours and billions of dollars to defend against them, can they get a CVN yeah, but it would be a based on a lot of factors, its all about how much the ASM aggressive nation is willing to invest in taking out the Carrier.
After they launch the missiles it makes little to no difference how old the plane is, multiple ASM's are dangerous to any vessel, even if they were launced from an old swordfish biplane...
@gtikounaify A little FYI, those ASM don't have the rage to be fired outside a carriers security zone. Any aircraft on an attack vector that reaches 500 miles are dead pilots. So sorry, this can't happen.
Thank you, you're absolutely right. However, this is not what I meant, which of course you could have found out had you not taken my original comment out of context.
Well, what I actually said was that the missiles in themselves are dangerous, regardless of launch platform. We all saw what the excocets did for example with USS stark and in the Falklands. Mind you, when a full task force is escorting the carrier, w/o major technical issues it'd mean severe casualities to the attacker without any guarantee of actually getting the carrier.
@gtikounaify Correction, that was the HMS Sheffield. The reason the Exocet hit her is because her radar was shut off for a communication to London. I was glued to the Falkland War when it was happening. That was a very incomplete and vulnerable task force, still it was a lucky shot. The Argentinian Mirage III would have never survived a complete naval task force, the plane would have been shot down long before reaching it's range. So I agree with you.
@petunized I guess you didn't notice it was a movie and didn't really happen. Apparently you aren't bright enough to know that one missile can't take out a US carrier unless it's a nuke. My so called speculation is based on knowledge of military facts. As to the British Navy, it is a support fleet and not intended to defend Britain by itself. To attack Britain is to attack the US. You should try to get your information from something other than movies.
@tdfisk dear Thomas But still it did sow its posible on paper motors use 100 procent is it real capacity but in real life its only 60 Germans in 1940 ies where thinking they have unbeateble warmachine and unbeatble lufwaffe but history learn us many things If ww3 would hapen and i pray it will not they all will lanch nukes and we all be toasted Us Ru and what Us do now they fight monkeys in midle east whit sofisticated futuristick weapons and still they have some looses
@caspernok I don't recall saying we are unbeatable, but I seriously doubt we can be defeated militarily. Not just because of our strength, but because of our allies, including Belgium by the way. Just like Vietnam, our government isn't fighting to win in the Middle East. I believe there are economic, political and military purposes for those wars, but I don't care to get into that. Obviously we could defeat those monkeys very easily.
I'm more interested in as to what damage ASM's can do to vessels, not under what circumstances they get hit. You CAN sink a carrier, Heck, you can sink the entire battle group, it's just a matter of how much losses the attacker is willing to take.
I'm not so sure anyone would go against a full task force with ASM's. The US rented HMS gotland with it's crew after it slipped to torpedo range from the Reagan in an excercise. I'd use subs, then again I'm just a regular guy.
Yes, a few torpedoes will do far more damage then the same number of missiles. But it would take a dozen missiles or so to actually sink a carrier. A few torpedoes might do it by themselves. The AIP engines on the Gotland made it extremely difficult to track.
Torpedoes are more effective...as they say, poking holes to let the water in is more effective than poking holes to let the air in.
@ViciousCritique The F-14, F-15, B-52...oh well, almost the entire U.S. inventory is also a Cold War relic. The Tu-22 is a match 2 bomber, and its electronics have been upgraded. So it is as modern and as lethal as any of the Cold War relics the U.S. army has in service.
@ViciousCritique the russian stock its quality but not for a long time my friend the stupid american stuff its expensive and not the best quality look the mig 21 and the f 4 on vietnam war the mig its very low price and the stupid f 4 its expensive for nothing and the mig have a chance to shot down a many us aircraft
si certain bombardier russe ont croiser certain porte avions sans se faire detecter alors oui cest possible un m issile a mach 3 au ras d une mer agitée ne se detecte pas
@Slawtuur "In case you haven't figured it out yet , YOU FUCKING MORON... I'm not going to respond to your dumbshit comments. Main reason is because you are such an infantile cocksmoker that I doubt you would be able to understand anything I say. So go back to eating your bigmac and giving your money for some Chinese governement like a good little bitch. BLOCKED." Dude i'm not 29 and not from india. I'm 18 yo shemale from brazil and you sooo want mine, right? you're so gullible...
This is what is waiting for you, if you obese morons mess with Russia again in Georgia. Don't say you weren't warned. Stop arming Georgia, and stop propping-up the yankee-passport-holding dictator you've installed there. We are telling you nicely, as a warning.
The movie kinda dumbs it down a bit, which makes it seem incredibly unrealistic. you guys should read the book, bye Tom Clancy. The actual scenario that plays out in the book is MUCH more realistic, and has all of the modern elements come into play. Of course, the outcome is similar, but its not convoluted BS like the movie scene.
We shouldnt beef with the russians, they are white folks. Lets instead beef with the niggers running in packs attacking white people, robbing, raping, and stealing unchecked by our government. We truly shouldnt beef with other white nations.
its pretty cool music
ticul032 2 days ago
love the piece of the music starting at 0:07
j0noStrIk3r 2 days ago
it was a hole bomber wing they didn't launch close but from very far away and they didn't sink her just burned her. yet yes this could happen 1 time maybe 2 or 3 if done right. Russian missile tech is much better the u.s in most areas.
starknight97 4 days ago
ruSSia's dreams.
carrier without escort - lie
bombers reach carrier and they didn't even know it - lie
ruSSians ejaculate from this video
Impulse116 4 days ago
@Impulse116
American dreams:
Ability to intercept Russian anti ship missiles.
natsplit 4 days ago
@natsplit
i wish there will be chance to test that.
really why don't russia and usa try to make such test with help of dummy missiles.
this would destroy all myths. but i am sure both of them wont try that
Impulse116 4 days ago
@Impulse116
i guess both don't want to reveal the exact performance of their systems.
natsplit 4 days ago
@natsplit
lets wait for iran vs israel war.
that would be almost same as usa vs russia
Impulse116 4 days ago
@Impulse116 if russia sell to iran c-300, usa think, mach more think,....If you think what Iran have just Soviet weapons - you wrong...)
shipilovden 4 days ago
@shipilovden
Если ты русский, то можно и на русише.
Жаль, что россия не продала С-300 (хотя может не официально и продала). Я очень хочу увидить их в действии. Надоели вечные споро у кого длинее. Пора проверять в боевых действиях. Да, у ирана не только вооружение с совка, есть и западное, и соременное российское.
забавно что почти у всех диктаторов в мире уружие в ссср или россии.
Impulse116 4 days ago
@Impulse116 Да, я тоже хочу увидеть, на что способны результаты многолетней гонки вооружений. однако, это будет война не малая, если подключится Китай. РФ конечно не будет открыто воевать, но поможет оружием, я уверен. Конечно, у всех разные взгляды на политические элиты мировых держав, нет сомнений в том, что политическую элиту США также можно назвать диктатурой. Это как говорится, разные мнения. Оружие США также кстати есть и было у диктаторов, это не секрет..
shipilovden 4 days ago
@Impulse116 of corse, this is soviet movie, but we (russian) have another weapon, for yours escorts and US Aircrafts. Realy, just look any documentary movies "Udarnaya Sila"
shipilovden 4 days ago
@shipilovden
Посмотрел. Мечтать не вредно.
Давай смотреть правде в лицо. Вооружение США лутче и его больше.
Если в россии есть что-то охренезное, то количество его единиц можно на пальцах перещитать.
США всегда будет хоть на один шаг, но впереди. Там много денег идет на оборонку, а в россии в карманы абрамовичей. Разве что ЗРК на его яхте сможет что-то сбить.
Impulse116 4 days ago
@Impulse116 Я бы поспорил, чье оружие лучше. Что касается количества - в этом не сомневаюсь, Россия еще лет 10 будет догонять США, если не будет ядерной войны. Охренеозного у нас уже достаточно, но об этом мало кто знает, есть режимы секретности, ты же понимаешь, сам, вижу, из Киева.. Абрамовичей у нас немного по сравнению с США, там вообще стоимость гайки в тендере Пентагон оценивал помню, в 1000 долларов, чтоль.. Вот это откатная система, нам еще до нее расти и расти)))
shipilovden 3 days ago
@shipilovden
В США тоже много секретного
Я сам работаю в сфере ремонта самолетов, так вот обычный крючек который у нас делают за 5 долларов, оригинальный стоит 800 баксов,
А гайки некоторые до 300 баксов. И это то что уже снято с производства. Новые на новые самолеты спокойно могут стоить 1000. Даже мелочь всякая стоит до 100 баксов, цена котороый вроде бы максимум пару баксов.
А на новые самолеты нверно еще больше стоит.
Так что не думаю, что то был откат
Impulse116 3 days ago
@Impulse116 я не супергайку имел ввиду, там и швабры на авианосцы закупались по ценам, что какбэ из красного лакированного дерева)) Ну да ладно, проехали. Конечно, сырьевая база у нас хромает, ну это ожидаемо, развалили страну и алкаш был у власти 10 лет почти. Ну, ничего, где наша не пропадала. Будем догонять, думаю.
shipilovden 3 days ago
Those bombers never flew that close even in the movie
kinofresh . ru / index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1892&Itemid=38
Watch non-cut sceene at 82:00
timeflex 6 days ago
I heard that a TU-22M3 was shot down by Georgian Sam Sites.
Failcard 6 days ago
@Failcard That it was. It seems like the Russians are a little behind on their SEAD capabilities.
franknbeans4761 2 days ago
Not to mention, they'd scramble several squadrons to intercept them
lmos26 1 week ago
Sorry but you'll never fly that close a US Aircraft carrier, those fuckers have more SAM batteries than you'd imagine. They'll start launching ungodly amounts of missles before you're even 50 miles close to it.
lmos26 1 week ago
@lmos26 My friend, if you want to see what an ungodly amout of SAM is look out the kirov battlecruiser, 394 AA missiles i think.
And those missiles are standoff missiles, that can be launched way earlier than 50 miles. Those in particular are Raduga Kh-22, with a range of 220 nautical miles.
VikingHaag 6 days ago
@lmos26 Bad typing, the missiles fired by the bombers are the Kh-22, nothing to do with the sams, sorry.
VikingHaag 6 days ago
@lmos26 They are close to make it more thrilling ....blame hollywood kid.
ViciousCritique 1 day ago
oh finally my comment went out of the first page. so i am not going to receive messages from internet ego warriors anymore. i feel blessed!
petunized 1 week ago
petunized, can you upload the WHOLE attack scene, which includes rather realistic and important dialogue from the carriers CIC?
Sunburn2007 1 week ago
Thats what the whole world is waiting!
Этого ждет весь мир!
teplotexnik 1 week ago
I bet in case things get worse in the Persian Gulf, the Iranians will use this clip to show how they destroyed John Stennis lol
Shmacktop 2 weeks ago
Who the fuck gave the iranian some Tu-22 backfire including Sunburns?! wake up my american friends. Phalanx can't care about so fast incoming missiles. 10 may be 15 sunburns and every synchron formation and every carrier is history. Carriers are only big swimming targets...
Stanley6296 2 weeks ago 2
Firstly, the E-3 Hawkeye would detect the Tu 22's long before they get in range and datalink this info to the carrier. Tu 22s are huge aircraft with a large radar signature. The CAP of F/A 18s would shoot them down, again, long before the could launch these missiles. Secondly, Hollywood "forgets" that NO US Carrier is alone. She is escorted by at least one cruiser and 2 destroyers. Both our cruisers and destroyers have the MK 41 VLS launchers to defeat missiles & Bombers! Nice try Hollywood!
LazarusAutoDetail 2 weeks ago
Meh...this is somewhat realistic as it shows what would happen if a squadron of undetected aircraft managed to get close enough to fire ASM missiles. As previously stated in other posts US carriers have a screen of aircraft 500-700 miles out to prevent undetected aircraft getting within firing range. But like the video shows, IF someone managed to get close enough to fire missiles, AND they fire enough missiles to overwhelm our PHALANX, the ship is fucked beyond doubt.
surfgodx 2 weeks ago
Fucking video... Not logic at all... No any aircraft or battle ship can near with the carrier in 300 km... The carrier will launch the fighter F-18 to warning the aircraft or ship 1st... If the enemy attack the fighter... F-18 will punishing they with an attack or destroyed...
CR7fans1993 2 weeks ago
@CR7fans1993 don't forget that the bombers may be escorted by fighter jets
HvPman 2 weeks ago
justement des avions russes aurais pu couler 4 porte avion si il l aurais voulue sibole 4 milliards le prix deds porte avion pis pas foutu de voir un avion en approche bravo GANG DE TARLAT D AMERICAINS
ticul032 2 weeks ago
Bande de taré de ricains les Russes auraient dû vous fumer votre gueule car il le pouvait, mais ça va ptet revenir et on entendra moins votre grande gueule !!
VolantPneu 2 weeks ago 2
Классяка!
RomarioUA1 2 weeks ago
WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS RUSSIAN FLYOVER TAKES NAVY BY SURPRISE? Ship personnel say incident more serious threat than Pentagon admits Published: 12/07/2000
vas1969 3 weeks ago
Didn't the tu22 overfly the kitty hawk undetected?
vas1969 3 weeks ago
Third world countries may not be able to, but seriously your delusional if you think the ruskis cannot sink this with nuclear asm's.
vas1969 3 weeks ago
uhg. hated to see what they did to jack ryan in this movie version. damn you tom clancy... damn you for selling the rights to jack ryan.
187Unseen 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
NorStarReviews 3 weeks ago
Particularly during the Cold War, Soviet Naval Aviation became very well trained at tactics they would use to take out US carriers. Read either this book or "Red Storm Rising" to find some good examples of how.
sargeanb 3 weeks ago
@sargeanb There are a few flaws in this plan. One, TU-22 would have a hard time approaching an aircraft carrier without being intercepted. In the movie they have no fighter escort, F-14's and F-18's are a Carriers first line of defense. If they pass that line they would be intercepted by Aegis Cruisers, then Sea Sparrow missile and finally the CWIS in the movie. This is a very bad plan. It would be more understandable if they used long ranged ballistic missiles in an overwhelming mass
gearbox011 3 weeks ago
@gearbox011 I reality there had been 100 Backfire than 2 Oskar with 250 missiles fired from diferent angels away from the faighter escort radar coverage.
200 missiles traveling at mach 4-5 reaches the carrier group after a few minutes picking out the most important goals, 1 missile is enough to sink a cruiser, 3 for aircraft carrier.
A normal aircraft carrier group can not keep firing enough missiles and ECM to prevent the hit, the would be happy about 90-95% will be shot down:)
MrCastodian 2 weeks ago 2
@MrCastodian yes that get 1 boat 1 time for sure and most of the carrier group. 10+more too go.
starknight97 1 week ago
@starknight97 Next turn is the 10 submarines that fire the same amount of missiles, etc.
Is not as simple as saying, "our fleet is the largest, we have 11 aircraft carrier groups'
War is asymmetric with more than one angle in the calculation, the enemy does not build a force to compete with the U.S., they are building a force to combat it.
MrCastodian 1 week ago
@MrCastodian by then carrier groups would join up have 2 or 3 groups as giving 12 to 36cruisers and even more missiles frigates. Radar plans be airborne.Sub hunting copper looking too. so in sort their be enough too shot down even that many missile which take allot more then 10 subs but the hole 60 plus active ballistic missile sub fleet. Then uses maybe you could do 2 at one time in a surprise attack that's 9+the mini carriers alive.Now they hunt ever boat or plane in the ocean.
starknight97 1 week ago
@starknight97 Sounds good in theory, had it been so easy, there had been a long time ago, the U.S. is not as superior as you might think.
You give the theoretical numbers, in practice they does not gathered several aircraft carrier forces in the same place for fear of tactical nuclear strike that could come, and 36 cruisers?
You live in the belief that everything the U.S. does at will be 100% successful, but you have not the faintest idea about the effect of 100 incoming missiles.
MrCastodian 1 week ago
@MrCastodian Why haven't you responded to the actual message I sent you. Instead you are just trolling and ignoring viable truths....
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 hey bud ilove the truth you speak of
MrWinnerwinnerwinner 1 week ago
@MrCastodian true but a tatical nuke in this case is a less of a worry 3 groups of 3 still give a spread out tactic. then the sm-3 can down any ballistic nuke in bound with the aegis system. no it not and you clearly wrong cause i can see how you get 1 maybe 2 carriers at a very high cost. with 3 fleet combined they be fare spread out now with a sea-wolf around at this point. Radar planes be air-borne and surface skimmer don't help their. then most though bombers be dead too.
starknight97 1 week ago
@MrCastodian don't forget they have too deal with 3 seawolfs and 12 Virginia class hunting them that are red October subs or totally undetectable. No Russia don't have the navel power too do it any more.
starknight97 1 week ago
@starknight97 undetectable? Is not only to send out 15 submarines in the ocean and get the job done, the reality is diferent :)
Lock att Afganistan, Vietnamn, Iraq, locks easy on paper, but in reality was not the same.
MrCastodian 1 week ago
@MrCastodian then remember though bomber would all die as the f18's have nothing else to do but run them down before they run out fuel from the first strike. Same goes for the subs if they did a strike with a good chance the Virginia class sub that protects the carrier group see them first.
starknight97 1 week ago
@starknight97 Why would Virginia sub see them first?
"Run Them Down before They run out fuel from the First Strike"
You can not keep up with them .... they fired their missiles, then they turn back, they have plenty of fuel to get home and haigher speed
MrCastodian 1 week ago
@MrCastodian because it like the sea wolf though as bit smaller. A totally quit sub passive sonar do nothing too see it. With no carrier to go home too though f18 turn burn for though bombers and bears are very slow and huge targets. only the super sonic stand a chance of getting away. the f18's in patrol don't their always a few up minus very bad weather. in the water yes it is huge number very advanced tech. Seawolfs & Virginia rule under the ocean and carrier rule the surface.
starknight97 1 week ago
@MrCastodian 100 Backfires against 1 carrier is not fair when looking at proportions. Try 100 Backfires against 3-5 carriers.
And think of the number of carrier planes they would deal with.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
In ww2, German bombers flying from bases in southern France, attacked an Italian Navy force using the first anti-shipping missiles in history: the Fritz-X radio controlled missile. With only 2 Fritz-X bombs, the Germans destroyed a 45,000 ton new battleship "Roma", with huge loss of life. Now imagine two of these huge, +Mach 2, 3 or 4 ASMs hitting a carrier or any other major war vessel today; i´think they can destroy anything.
vonkaunaz 3 weeks ago
I think it was raining, so no F-22 can't do crap. Why didn't they use a Tu-22M that would have completly have sunk the carrier in a single or two shot(s)!
BusinessKi11ER 4 weeks ago
F-22 Raptor could stop them easily.
ViciousCritique 1 month ago
I've never read the Sum of all Fears. But I'm currently reading Red Storm Rising, which has a similar seen when Tu-22s attack a Nimitz Class carrier.
rdvd7 1 month ago
I love the realism in this scene (god forbid this would ever happen) - i like how the Phalanx doesn't destroy every missile but it still did it's best. "They practically sank an aircraft carrier!"
CAinfowarrior 1 month ago
@CAinfowarrior There is no realism in it really. Its just for a show. In reality those missiles launched beyond visual range and travel at 5 speeds of sound. Its in fact faster than a phalanx shell. You wont really see them coming
petunized 1 month ago 15
@petunized
Unless you think the missile is faster than light, it WILL be seen on radar. And the Phalanx shell's speed makes no difference, it will still hit the missile before impact, as it was designed to do.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid It's always nice to meet people like you, who browse the internets to prove everywhere that america is awesomest in everything. small hint for you: i wasn't even talking about capabilities of the phalanx. just imagine how sick you are!
petunized 3 weeks ago
@petunized
So when you said, "Its in fact faster than a phalanx shell.", someone had hijacked your keyboard? I did not mention anything about America, just physics.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid you dont seem to get it, do you? try to read it few more times.
petunized 3 weeks ago
@petunized
Yes, you should read my comment a few more times.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid I'll try to make it clear for you one last time. My post wasn't about who is better, phalanx or aircraft carrier or anything else. but there are always ppl like you, with a massive ego and no personal achievements. to feed their ego, they participate in the special olympics, trying hard to prove everywhere that they are living in the best country and have best of everything. it makes them feel better. yes, i am talking about you. you are sick! sick! sick!
petunized 3 weeks ago
@petunized
WOW, you really are nuts.
Do you troll like this all the time looking for some tiny reason for your existence?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@petunized Of course, everyone's missing the point. An aircraft carrier, with no escort, sailing within range of enemy land-based bombers during an international incident? A crew that stupid deserves to have their ship sunk.
AINGELPROJECT667 2 weeks ago
@AINGELPROJECT667 Better to concentrate on your homework, my youtube air warfare expert.
petunized 2 weeks ago
@petunized
Of course, then again, trying to change peoples' opinions over the internet is like trying to shove a car battery into a McDonald's toy.
Also, the book was better.
AINGELPROJECT667 2 weeks ago
@AINGELPROJECT667 zealots like you don't have an "opinion" Opinion is something based on facts and inferences from those facts. You are too fanatical and egocentric to SEE facts, and too stupid to make inferences. What you call "opinion" is just a religious "belief"
And this itch you are having to argue all over the internets about the things you have no clue in whatsoever. Oh boy! :)
petunized 2 weeks ago
@petunized
I have no idea what you're talking about. I just stated that I thought the book was better. You mad, bro?
AINGELPROJECT667 2 weeks ago
@petunized the reality is - in a situation like sum of all fears the Carrier would have it's E2Cs in the air. The backfires would never get close enough to fire. Phalanx is last line of defense The carriers screening cruisers are almost certainly carrying SM2ERs or SM3s. The bombers would be toast
jdluntjr76226 2 weeks ago
@jdluntjr76226 muhhahaaa! :) another youtube air warfare expert with butthurt and 7 classes of education. finish the school first, kid. by talking about things you have no clue in, you are making yourself a clown.
petunized 2 weeks ago
@petunized What's the matter? Is there a problem with someone else possibly being right? Tell me, what makes you such an expert in air warfare? You're not doing yourself any good by replying negatively to peoples' comments on here and insulting them.
alexandermakrianis 1 week ago
@alexandermakrianis Go find some better things to do, than to argue who is right on a subject which you know about only from hollywood movies.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized I have over 16 years service in the military so my knowledge goes a little beyond Hollywood. Also don't tell me to do something better with myself when its clear that you're the one with nothing better to do.
alexandermakrianis 1 week ago
@alexandermakrianis notice: i am not the one who is pestering you with my stupid emails. wanna prove who is right and who is wrong? I see the special olympics is raging all over the comments. please feel free to join! Don't hold it inside! just don't write me anymore. over.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized Stuff it!!
alexandermakrianis 1 week ago
@petunized yes you will your right though the missile faster but they are going head on. then radar the speed of light. with boat having some of the biggest radar ranges with radar plans too add more yet. Even the slower intercept missiles could hit though fast missiles. then this attack only work once
starknight97 1 week ago
@starknight97 another clown... why do you have to prove everywhere that everything american is super duper? what sort of butthurt have you got? do you understand that by talking on subjects you have no clue in, and know about only from a TV show, you making yourself a clown? and sadly, not even a funny one.
but anyway, please welcome to the circus in the comments. i see there are other "experts" like you with opposite views, so you have plenty to talk about.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized Well, in reality, you would. US satellites would fully observe the bombers leaving base and when in combat, they always have an E-2 2000 flying overhead. They would see the bombers before they could even launch the missiles. And those missiles do not fly at Mach 5, or hypersonic speeds.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 More and more clowns into the circus! Cmon! don't be shy! Come right there, in the center of the arena. Share your expertise in air warfare with us. We all really want to know school kids opinion about the subject.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized Regardless of who I am, refute what I said. And with my experience, I do know what I am talking about.
Regardless, there are no fully active missiles that travel at hypersonic speeds. And all current missiles that travel Mach 3-4 only have ranges of 100-400 km. Well within carrier defenses.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 "with my expertise" muhahhaha!! :) another youtube 14 y o expert. i am glad you've joined the special olympics and are now happy. there is one important thing to remember though: even if you won the comment death match, you are still retarded. so better go concentrate on your home work. and try to get more classes on hard science. no good would come to you from those ego matches over the internet.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized YouTube is a good way to spread information. I am currently in college and I'm an Officer Candidate for the Marine Corps. What training do you have?
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 "Officer Candidate for the Marine Corps" meh. that definitely makes you an expert in radiolocation and rocketry. How can't you see that you are just a fucking clown?
Test: Please calculate the RCS of a 1 square meter plane with its normal facing a radar emitting 3GHz wave.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized I am not saying I am an expert in radiolocation and rocketry. But what I do know that in terms of high Mach missiles, the RCS of a missile is not always relevant. It is never fully facing it's target, and certainly not carrier escorts. And in combat missions, US carriers always have an E-2 flying overhead, looking at the broad side of missiles.
And the E-2D will be able to guide SAM's to missiles.
Either way, Mach 3-4 missiles only have 100-400 km ranges. Fact.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 Where do you get that what you are calling "facts"? but whatever, its pointless to argue with ppl like you. you are too stupid to understand some arguments, and your ego is too big to accept anything that may hurt it.
Both of this factors dont even allow you to understand that you are just a big kid. A grown up person wont argue about subjects they know about only from a brainwashing TV show.
I am over with you.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized Really? A Kh-22 has a top range of 400 km, depending on altitude, and a speed of Mach 4.
In any real combat situation, the US would be having full observation on Russian bomber bases and would be aware if any large bomber formation or even if a few bombers leave.
That and with the E-2, plenty of time would be given to launch fighters and intercept the bombers before launching the missiles.
After all, the Rhino has a combat radius of 722 km in interdiction missions.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 ahhh i knew it was futile. but than thought you may get some of what i said and reconsider your behavior. i still see some hope in ppl like you. and you keep disappointing me.
keep going kid! tell me about optimus prime guarding every US air carrier. do your performance, cheap clown!
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized Saying "clown" doesn't help your credibility whatsoever.
You didn't refute what I said at all. And there is nothing ridiculous about what I said.
Why wouldn't the carriers be guarded by their own aircraft? Are you mad?
On May 8, 2009, an E-2D guided a SM-6 to an overland cruise missile in a test and successfully intercepted it. The E-2D is projected to enter service in 1-2 years.
Respond to what I said or know your place.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 "daddy! daddy! optimus prime will beat the inceptikon, he has a nice big gun! ... refute what i said!"
the very fact that you are saying it reveals that you are just a kid.
:) the funny shit is that i wasn't even saying what is better, but butthurted like you simply HAVE to prove that everything american is super duper. Everywhere! All over the internet! everything that has comments, soon going to be overwhelmed with your mental diarrhea.
you are mentally ill.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized You are bitter about something, that is obvious.
Obviously CBG's have their weaknesses. Particularly to submarines. But in terms of missile attacks and instances like this video, it is not as realistic as it seems.
I never once hinted US equipment is invincible like some people do. I was correcting your ignorance.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@petunized Haha is that really the best you can come up with when sombody makes you look like a huge retard. Then you go and help them by doing it to yourself hahaha what a joke you are. What's next mom jokes or will you just cry all day.
MrWinnerwinnerwinner 1 week ago
@MrWinnerwinnerwinner yeah i was just talking about ppl like you. going all around youtube to participate in yelling matches. trying hard to prove that everything american is uber. A canonical example of a looser without any personal achievements.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized Oh daddy! Again you look like a fool you must have nothing to be proud of as we do if it bothers you so much prove other wise since your such a winner lol. And yes I will always go from site to site telling americas military power and nobody can stop our eagle. You expect not to see our comments hello look at the site and page you are on dumdum.its like going to a car show and getting mad cause there's cars there what are you 4yrs old
MrWinnerwinnerwinner 1 week ago
@MrWinnerwinnerwinner "as we do" hahhaha :) who do you mean by "we" your majesty? you personally are just a whole lot of nothing. an internet laughing-stock. what part is it of yours in making america better? "I will always go from site to site telling americas military power" so you are just another sick internet warrior. bye-bye!
and yeah, you nick name says it all ;) Mr big time looser.
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized WOW great come back mr big time loser to bad you can't spell HAHAHA!! Well princess I see your just a young CRYBABY so yes byebye.
MrWinnerwinnerwinner 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 i wonder, have you got it finally, or just gave it up? :)
petunized 1 week ago
@petunized Don't waste my time.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 Sorry, haven't got the email notification of your response in time, so was wonder about the silence.
Ok. I'll let you to waste it yourself ;)
petunized 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 Nice going armchair general .
ViciousCritique 1 day ago
@ViciousCritique Ha thanks. Although I am serving, thus it's relevance to myself.
franknbeans4761 23 hours ago
@franknbeans4761 Serving food ?
ViciousCritique 22 hours ago
@ViciousCritique Well, I am about to receive my commission as an officer. I'm doing Marine PLC, I just need to finish school. Although I am not in active duty yet, being a candidate still, I will be soon.
franknbeans4761 22 hours ago
When I saw this scene in the movie I couldn't stop laughing. An American carrier is just going to sit and do nothing when attacked. Well, that's what it would take for this to happen. A ready alert f-4 Tomcats would have splashed these fools no less than 500 miles away. That's the safety zone for a US carrier. Are Russians really stupid enough to believe this could happen? Not very many I would think.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 month ago
@tdfisk it's an american movie.
DeathPheonix117 1 month ago
@tdfisk : What the Russians might believe doesn´t matter...what matters is the battle record of the anti-shipping missile. Do your research, it shouldn´t be difficult for you to get the whole picture real fast. These missiles have been used only a few times, in limited numbers, and their effectiveness -and lethality- is more than proven. Start where things started: the German Fritz-X and Henschel missiles of ww2 and the number of British and U.S. ships those toys destroyed or crippled.
vonkaunaz 1 month ago
@vonkaunaz There's research and then there's real life. All weapons are effective and lethal, but only if they hit their target. Your country fired all 2 of your Exocet at the British, only 1 hit and that's because the ship's radar was shut off. Western counter measures today can blow missiles out of the sky. Russian and Chinese equipment is pure crap, not a real threat. Anti ship missiles may look impressive, but they sure won't take out a US carrier.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 month ago
@tdfisk I don´t respond nor discuss with ignorant propaganda infected American creeps such as yourself. :))
vonkaunaz 1 month ago
@vonkaunaz Sounds good to me. You aren't as important as you think you are.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 month ago
@tdfisk Sow rnge of rockets is 400kM before they all took of the carier they will be shooting rockets and go back 2 base its a surprise atack like pearl harbor if u see the move they was not expecting it im patriot 2
caspernok 1 day ago
@caspernok Military ships at sea are always expecting an attack, especially US carrier task forces. They are constantly on the alert and scanning a thousand mile radius. Low altitude aircraft and missiles would be detected and destroyed. There are also escort ships that were missing in the movie. Recently the news stated the super carrier George Washington went through the Strait of Hormuz flanked by British and French ships, Carriers are always well protected.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 day ago
@caspernok PS. In reality there are no circumstances where Russia would ever directly attack the US and vice versa, The reasons are obvious, as you stated. That in itself makes the scene in this video totally absurd. It's just a silly movie and people who take movies too seriously are not in touch with reality.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 day ago
DON'T MESS WITH MOTHER RUSSIA
tninbredretard 1 month ago 12
Scratch one carrier.
vvsignin1 1 month ago
I don't remember this from the book - read it a long time ago (great book, though!). I DO remember this happening in Red Storm Rising (one of my favorite books of all time). In that book the soviets launched a mess of older cruise missiles from Badgers first to draw out the Tomcats. Then a massive wave of Backfires came in behind and launched a couple hundred longer range missiles. The fleet spent it's compliment of AMM's and 2 hit the... Nimitz? Can't remember for sure.
442hoeky 1 month ago
всрались янки))
nicox407 1 month ago
чет много америкосов, оправдываются видать =)
intheshadowBy 1 month ago
movie is fantastic ! :) I recommend to watch "the sum of all fears"
filip92belgrade 1 month ago
nothing cant stop RUSSIANS!
MrSith86 2 months ago
@MrSith86 nothing cant stop russians? So.... everything can stop russians? Well, thanks alot for the info. Didn´t know it would be that easy.
TheSocius 2 months ago
Please, i never mentioned this movie. I talk about historical facts: the ASM has a devastating combat record in the few occasions it´s been used: mainly ww2 used by the Germans, and in the Falklands used by Argentina. Yes a CVN might carry advanced defenses, but it reminds me of the Norden bombsight carried by the B-17 in ww2, the contractor claiming it "could hit a pickle barrel from 30,000 ft", the thing was joke once in combat, and only because of the huge number of bombers you hit anything.
vonkaunaz 2 months ago
Soviet Airborne ASMs are freaking huge. It's not like a harpoon or exocet. The simple impact of one of those monsters could easily sink a cruiser.
They were precisely designed to sink Aircraft Carrier groups. The moment a Tu-22 or a Tu-95 gets a lock on radar, that's it. Radar Horizon is their range
That's why USA developed the F-14 and the Phoenix missiles. Without them, they're sitting ducks for the Soviet Air Force.
Sky1green 2 months ago 2
Its a movie guys, the seen was pretty epic but full of factual errors, like stated carriers are never alone we have carrier strike groups, multiple ships with different roles, there's a destroyer devoted in a carrier strike group just to air defense he would have found them on radar and had missile and alert aircraft launched far before those jets would have been in range. But that's the basic idea of how a carrier would defend its self very lastly with the anti missile gun.
MrGeforcerFX 2 months ago
@MrGeforcerFX ASMs are extremely lethal, whoever might deploy them. Their record is absolutely devastating: as early as in ww2, used in limited numbers by the Luftwaffe, they sank and crippled a large number of enemy warships, including capital ships -batlleships like the Roma (sunk) and the HMS Warspite (crippled for months). In the Flaklands, used in limited numbers by Argentina, they scored lethal hits on British vessels. As for the latest Russian ones, expect even higher power of destruction
vonkaunaz 2 months ago
@vonkaunaz i now there deadly hence why the US navy uses advance radar to detect aircraft far far out, the tu-22 would have to go up against a barrage of long distance SAMs and a air attack from the carrier itsself. But your correct there deadly, which is why we also use them.
MrGeforcerFX 2 months ago
@MrGeforcerFX : Correct. But also don´t forget ASMs can also be launched from land sites as well. I believe that when the U.S. Navy faces an enemy using latest ASMs, it will be proven that the super carriers are obsolete. Those huge ASMs are capable of destroying a CVN, or at least crippling it with huge loss of life on board. Read articles of the fate of the Italian battleship Roma when it was attacked by German bombers nearly 70 years ago, it can help us imagine what a modern-day ASM can do.
vonkaunaz 2 months ago
@vonkaunaz but the entire concept of a ASM is still flawed, its radar controlled, and there are major electronic warfare weapons in a carrier strike group, the US navy has definitely foreseen these as a problem and has done a ton of things to prevent them from being effective. A carrier can launch attack aircraft against ground ASM's eliminating them and still have enough aircraft to defend itself against airborne attack. Not to mention the other onboard defensive weapons this mov didn't show
MrGeforcerFX 2 months ago
@MrGeforcerFX Oh man, so you´re basically saying a CVN can never be hit by ASMs right?
vonkaunaz 2 months ago
@vonkaunaz noo to many factors really, guess i was just amazed at how easy the video made it look, when in reality the NAVY has feared those things from there invention and has spent countless R & D hours and billions of dollars to defend against them, can they get a CVN yeah, but it would be a based on a lot of factors, its all about how much the ASM aggressive nation is willing to invest in taking out the Carrier.
MrGeforcerFX 2 months ago
Yeah.. just buy more Dutch goalkeepers and a lot of Thales radarsystem equipment.
Brulluhman 2 months ago
This is such bull shit. I don't see any of the 75 planes the US carrier defends itself with.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Tu-22 is cold war relic ...typical russian garbage .
This fictional video is fine , but reality is .....Tu-22 would get shot down fucking fast and fucking easy.
Russian military is pure JOKE.
ViciousCritique 2 months ago
@ViciousCritique
It wouldn't get shot down.
It would be hugging the ground to avoid detection.
Sismiques 2 months ago
@Sismiques US Carriers have airborne radar that can look down. They also have some other airplanes the video failed to show.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@ViciousCritique
Besides, they don't even need to get close to use their missiles, they can be hundreds of miles away.
Sismiques 2 months ago
@ViciousCritique
After they launch the missiles it makes little to no difference how old the plane is, multiple ASM's are dangerous to any vessel, even if they were launced from an old swordfish biplane...
gtikounaify 2 months ago 20
@gtikounaify A little FYI, those ASM don't have the rage to be fired outside a carriers security zone. Any aircraft on an attack vector that reaches 500 miles are dead pilots. So sorry, this can't happen.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 month ago
@tdfisk
Thank you, you're absolutely right. However, this is not what I meant, which of course you could have found out had you not taken my original comment out of context.
gtikounaify 1 month ago
@gtikounaify What did I take out of context?
Thomas
tdfisk 1 month ago
@tdfisk
Well, what I actually said was that the missiles in themselves are dangerous, regardless of launch platform. We all saw what the excocets did for example with USS stark and in the Falklands. Mind you, when a full task force is escorting the carrier, w/o major technical issues it'd mean severe casualities to the attacker without any guarantee of actually getting the carrier.
gtikounaify 1 month ago
@gtikounaify Correction, that was the HMS Sheffield. The reason the Exocet hit her is because her radar was shut off for a communication to London. I was glued to the Falkland War when it was happening. That was a very incomplete and vulnerable task force, still it was a lucky shot. The Argentinian Mirage III would have never survived a complete naval task force, the plane would have been shot down long before reaching it's range. So I agree with you.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 month ago
@tdfisk blah blah blah."would have never" "would have been". It killed the flagship with one shot, one kill. the rest are just speculations.
Make no mistake, british navy is basically a fleet of shitboxes, only useful against something like embargoed Iraq or Argentina.
petunized 1 month ago
@petunized I guess you didn't notice it was a movie and didn't really happen. Apparently you aren't bright enough to know that one missile can't take out a US carrier unless it's a nuke. My so called speculation is based on knowledge of military facts. As to the British Navy, it is a support fleet and not intended to defend Britain by itself. To attack Britain is to attack the US. You should try to get your information from something other than movies.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 month ago
@tdfisk wow! such a smart guy didn't pay attention that the conversation was about HMS Sheffield.
Thank you, captain obvious. I thought it wasn't a movie. I though it was documentary footage and happened for real.
you are obviously the smartest guy in the internets, please, keep talking! dont hold it inside.
petunized 1 month ago
@tdfisk dear Thomas But still it did sow its posible on paper motors use 100 procent is it real capacity but in real life its only 60 Germans in 1940 ies where thinking they have unbeateble warmachine and unbeatble lufwaffe but history learn us many things If ww3 would hapen and i pray it will not they all will lanch nukes and we all be toasted Us Ru and what Us do now they fight monkeys in midle east whit sofisticated futuristick weapons and still they have some looses
caspernok 1 day ago
@caspernok I don't recall saying we are unbeatable, but I seriously doubt we can be defeated militarily. Not just because of our strength, but because of our allies, including Belgium by the way. Just like Vietnam, our government isn't fighting to win in the Middle East. I believe there are economic, political and military purposes for those wars, but I don't care to get into that. Obviously we could defeat those monkeys very easily.
Thomas
tdfisk 1 day ago
@gtikounaify
The Stark was hit from about 20 miles away with defensive systems in standby, a crew trained the wrong way and very restrictive ROE.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid
I'm more interested in as to what damage ASM's can do to vessels, not under what circumstances they get hit. You CAN sink a carrier, Heck, you can sink the entire battle group, it's just a matter of how much losses the attacker is willing to take.
I'm not so sure anyone would go against a full task force with ASM's. The US rented HMS gotland with it's crew after it slipped to torpedo range from the Reagan in an excercise. I'd use subs, then again I'm just a regular guy.
gtikounaify 3 weeks ago
@gtikounaify
Yes, a few torpedoes will do far more damage then the same number of missiles. But it would take a dozen missiles or so to actually sink a carrier. A few torpedoes might do it by themselves. The AIP engines on the Gotland made it extremely difficult to track.
Torpedoes are more effective...as they say, poking holes to let the water in is more effective than poking holes to let the air in.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@tdfisk naive kid watching 2 much propaganda shows about US military power?
petunized 1 month ago
@gtikounaify A navy guy told me that ships are vulnerable to multiple incoming missiles It's just a matter of how many are incoming at once.
roylopear 1 month ago
@ViciousCritique NOPE
AS-4 Kitchen - range 600 km speed 4.5M supersonic , with a 350-1000-kiloton nuclear warhead :P
WMuckaMW 2 months ago
@ViciousCritique The F-14, F-15, B-52...oh well, almost the entire U.S. inventory is also a Cold War relic. The Tu-22 is a match 2 bomber, and its electronics have been upgraded. So it is as modern and as lethal as any of the Cold War relics the U.S. army has in service.
vonkaunaz 2 months ago
@ViciousCritique the russian stock its quality but not for a long time my friend the stupid american stuff its expensive and not the best quality look the mig 21 and the f 4 on vietnam war the mig its very low price and the stupid f 4 its expensive for nothing and the mig have a chance to shot down a many us aircraft
ticul032 3 weeks ago
Does anybody know if there will be a further movie version of a Clancy book?
hardware199 2 months ago
si certain bombardier russe ont croiser certain porte avions sans se faire detecter alors oui cest possible un m issile a mach 3 au ras d une mer agitée ne se detecte pas
ticul032 2 months ago
@Slawtuur "In case you haven't figured it out yet , YOU FUCKING MORON... I'm not going to respond to your dumbshit comments. Main reason is because you are such an infantile cocksmoker that I doubt you would be able to understand anything I say. So go back to eating your bigmac and giving your money for some Chinese governement like a good little bitch. BLOCKED." Dude i'm not 29 and not from india. I'm 18 yo shemale from brazil and you sooo want mine, right? you're so gullible...
katyushaegawa 2 months ago
US Navy Carrier Group detection systems will ... well, let's just say, the enemy will not be mere "toast", the enemy will be burn't toast ,,, lol
mikegallegos7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slawtuur "Are you a fucking retard??? Dont comment me you bitch ass racist. You dont have the right brain."
: hey dude i'm just using your basic sentence structure, lol.
katyushaegawa 2 months ago
This is what is waiting for you, if you obese morons mess with Russia again in Georgia. Don't say you weren't warned. Stop arming Georgia, and stop propping-up the yankee-passport-holding dictator you've installed there. We are telling you nicely, as a warning.
MoscowMaestro 2 months ago
You guys should read the book by Tom Clancy. The scenario in the novel is MUCH more realistic.
MrWrongoStarr 2 months ago
The movie kinda dumbs it down a bit, which makes it seem incredibly unrealistic. you guys should read the book, bye Tom Clancy. The actual scenario that plays out in the book is MUCH more realistic, and has all of the modern elements come into play. Of course, the outcome is similar, but its not convoluted BS like the movie scene.
MrWrongoStarr 2 months ago
We shouldnt beef with the russians, they are white folks. Lets instead beef with the niggers running in packs attacking white people, robbing, raping, and stealing unchecked by our government. We truly shouldnt beef with other white nations.
Slawtuur 2 months ago
@Slawtuur You need white stuff in you mouth too.
katyushaegawa 2 months ago
@Slawtuur Can't take white stuff in your mouth huh? .... Toothpaste is maybe too good to you baby.
katyushaegawa 2 months ago