Prev: Re: maps Next: Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

From: "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@s...>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:23:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts


>  If you do the whole flight on the deck, or just above it, the F-18's
won't have the
> legs to search for very long, and may not find the Kirov before the
Kirov
accomplishes
> whatever it was attempting to do.  So I suspect that the actual
hunting of
an
> unescorted Kirov by an unescorted carrier would not go entirely as
planned, and if the
> carrier must expend its entire complement of harpoons (the USN doesn't
have that many)
> to kill the Kirov, the carrier has been mission killed as an
anti-surface
unit as
> dropping bombs on Soviet ships bristling with 30mm gatlings is not a
pretty thought.
>
Actually, I alway prefered the Soviet Auto 130.  A very nice dual gun on
the
a latter Kirov's with unually high rate of fire and good range (for 5"
pee
shooter).  Buy the way, all of the Kirov's have 8 x 30mm gatling guns,
plus
2 x SAN-4 for shooting down missiles, so you will neet a lot to get by
it's
surge capacity.  And then there's defensive EW...

Currently, I doubt the US could afford the missiles and smart bombs to
hunt
a Kirov.  Not the cost, rather the missiles themselves.  Each of the
services are billions of dollars short of munitions, with smart bombs
and
guided missiles being in accute short supply...

ias


Prev: Re: maps Next: Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts