I would not like to be on a carrier, especially when Russia as the right idea on fighting a modern war you don't build carriers they are easy targets, look how many ships were sunk in ww11, not safe on a ship or a tank etc ect I would rather be on foot than perched on a ship, it's not about how big our aircraft carrier is it's about men putting their lives at risk by being part of the target, it's all about the missiles now modern warfare will be different as it proves ww1 was not close to ww11 and ww111 will be more ferocious than ww11 ships would play a small part but would be sunk early on as to maintain distance planes would be easy targets on both sides, sub's would be the best bet but once they loose of missiles they probably could be tracked and turned into watery graves, most probably some military nutter out there probably thinks a nuclear war can be won, I don't think so all involved in this ww111 will of wished they were nether born, END OF.
@@stephenlamb9008 With the obvious rise of the CCP (and it's "we're gonna dominate the world" rhetoric, I don't think we will need to concern ourselves with the Russians and Americans going head to head. Seems to me they might suddenly become fast friends and allies over a shared concern.
@@michaeldobson107 have you ever considered that western paranoia is the only reason our relations are bad to begin with? And yes I Understand the Soviet Union had its unpleasant moments, but that’s fizzled out at this point.
Yep, so many modern warfare experts here, that the US DoD is foolish to employ expensive consultants and 'think tanks', when all they need do is read the comments here. 😁
Simply put, it's too expensive for another navy to seriously challenge the balance of power amongst blue water navies. Between the member nations (especially the US), NATO has an almost unassailable advantage in aircraft carriers and their associated escorts. It makes no sense for the Russians or Chinese to try to build Carriers and their associated escorts because they'd bankrupt themselves and probably still fail to close the gap. However, by operating their own, heavily armed coastal fleets under an umbrella of friendly air/SAM cover, the theory runs that they will be able to keep the US Carriers farther out to sea and therefore less able to support US amphibious operations. This is all logical given the global positions of the relative nations. China has never exhibited any interest in military expansion outside of its own sphere in East Asia (mainly because governing a quarter of the world's population keeps them plenty busy). Putin has aspirations to reacquire territories that once belonged to the Russian Empire, but those all have land borders with Russia. Thus, neither China nor Russia is likely to become involved in a war that would require a blue seas fleet. The US, on the other hand, is almost guaranteed to fight every conflict overseas. Thus, the US developed a navy to meet is strategic needs and the Russians and Chinese have done the same. Hopefully we never find out which is more effective because if we do, a lot of good people will die.
Yea honestly, I was thinking the Russians can easily blow a hole in any of the United States ships and sink it, but at what cost? Their ships sinking too due to 24 Guided missiles that found their target 3 mins later….it would be total loss no body would be fighting for anything but their own lives at that point.
@@hudsonmatz2123 Exactly. War of attrition. Russia utilizes a defensive doctrine with it's Navy, while the US is posturing. One is a full costal nation (US) and one is primarily a landlocked-land mass. Why have a huge navy if you don't have a massive stretch of coastal waters.
you structured this in a very digestible & concise way considering the healthy context required to explain, you could be a content creator or teacher for sure bro.
@@vinny5638 I considered it. I spent years in the military and then worked as a security contractor and analyst. However, I'm often busy with school and work and travel which limits my ability to learn and produce quality content. I try to give my perspectives and experience where I can.
They buildiong carriers and china and Russia cannot go bankrupt. It can lack the means to buy products internaitonally esp. if the US et al bars russia from Swift payment system.
@@lolasdm6959 it has a bigger naval gun and much better air defence they can track 1000 missiles coming in at one time. It’s literally the best in the world.
As a veteran US Navy sailor, we use to make fun of how overloaded with weapon systems they were. More weapons just makes it easier to land a shot to light up the weapons stores and more systems that can fail and not work. Ask the crew of the Moskva how all those weapons and countermeasures worked for them.
Russia/USSR has always classified its Carriers as "Aircraft carrying Cruisers" so that they will be allowed to transit through the Bosphourous Straits to access the Black Sea. The Montreux Convention allows Black Sea states to transit "Capital" ships greater than 15Ktons (which is the general warship tonnage limit for non-black sea states) but excludes "Aircraft Carriers"...
but it were not pure aircraft carriers, becuase aircrafts for USSR carriers is AA, not offence weapon. For example Kuznetsov carry aircrafts and antiship missles and its main role to provide AA cover
@@rpgmarshal georgia first started assault, just yesterday European Court of Human Rights told that georgia started war in 08.08.2008. Same as ukranians started assault against russian citizen living in ukraine. BTW in Krimea were made referendum and krea people decide go back to russia, and russian forces made ZERO shots. And what made ukranians? they stopped to SELL water in krimea, not deliver for free, SELL... Pretty good care for own population in krimea from ukraine
Which in turn pushed the Essex and midway classes to have 30+ Essex class and 3 Midway’s which dwarfed every warship of the time in terms of dimensions
Russia's unique military features that you wouldn't see on any Western-based doctrine armies in the world: 1. Tanks with turret ejection system. 2. Drones with military-grade Canon cameras. 3. Ships with submarine diving capability.
LMAO how'd this turn out for your little invincible leopards little boy? Pretty sure you set a record for highest flying turret! Good job western puppet!
@@christianballard4813 LMAO how'd this turn out for your little invincible leopards little boy? Pretty sure you set a record for highest flying turret! Good job western puppet!
The reasons for arming them more heavily are pretty clear. The USSR simply couldn’t field an equivalent carrier-based navy, so they went with a cheaper alternative. Plus Khrushchev was firmly against the idea of big ships, claiming they were nothing but floating targets in the age of missiles
@@robc4191 If you can put a warhead anywhere on the Earth, then what is the point of an aircraft carrier? To sit in the middle of the ocean and pee in the water?
How to make the perfect Lego Destroyer Step 1: buy 100 lego destroyers Step 2: build a floating platform shaped like an empty ship Step 3: take out all the guns from your 100 Lego Destroyer set and slap them onto the platform shaped like an empty ship Step 4: Show the model to the Russian Navy and tell them to make a Big and Functioning ship that looks exactly like it Step 5: Congratulations you now have you own Lego Battleship
Ok Teal'c of Chulak A Serpent guard, a Horus guard and a Setesh guard meet on a neutral planet. It is a tense moment. The Serpent guard’s eyes glow. The Horus guard’s beak glistens. The Setesh guard’s nose drips.
Eventually, even Aircraft Carriers will be smaller. The rise of AI allows smaller faster drones to maneuver beyond the body’s capabilities under g-force. Its going to be a video game with the next War and mostly drones and robots fighting. Human element will be indoors controlling their equipment.
The American naval fleet is massive which means ships rarely travel alone. The Russians on the other hand have a relatively small fleet and have to depend on themselves for protection.
Relative to what? USA? Because Russia has a massive navy. They have many coast towards the sea therefor many of their ships are dispersed in smaller groups. Some of them can regroup and some of them can not (the baltic fleet).
@@Raptorftw In weigth yep. In numbers nope. USA 415 ships and Russia 352 ships. Normally I would also use the weight as a size of a navy, but it doesnt really tell what the navy is capable of. because a 1.500 tons swedish submarine can sink a gaurded 100.000 tons aircraft carrier.
Because if you can overwhelm the enemy ship's CIWS with enough missiles you will sink it no matter how big it is. Also having missiles "on deck" helps with ease of refitting the ship with bigger missiles, even if there will be fewer
@@ajl1218 And the third largest airforce is the USMC followed by I believe the Air National Guard although they would likely never be forward deployed as their main concern is homeland defense and support.
The only reason is that Russia doesn't have the naval airstrike capabilities of the US. That's it and that's all. In place of aircraft carriers and lots of them, they took the cheaper and some may say, more prudent approach, using mass missile strike capability to saturate and overwhelm a carrier strike group. Taken together with their sub fleet, it appears to be a formidable strategy.
against a carrier with an airwing that will spot you first from a thousands miles away, russian ships would be killed long before they even knew a carrier was in the area
@@eduwino151 Oh, I don't disagree. I think the Russians would be hopelessly outmatched. I'm just explaining the rational the Soviets had. During the height of the cold war, when asked about the technical superiority of the west, Russia responding saying, "Quantity has a quality all its own."
plus their landmass covers most of the northern hemisphere, so why do they need aircraft carriers when land based and serviced aircraft are so much easier, cheaper, logistically better... hell, they own most of the Arctic circle too, and that's another shortcut to western Europe and North-America .... and the Pacific and nth. Atlantic are handy too
@@lancervi1762 the Germans were very good with quality with heavy tanks and fighters in the Second World War but could never pump out enough to match the Russians, the Brits or the Americans. For every tiger tank it was worth 10 Sherman’s, fortunately for the Americans they always had atleast 11...
@@DontAttme Oh, for sure. Good points all. Though, something about naval warfare makes it seem that analogy doesn't quite work here. Tanks can hide. Subs can hide. Capital ships and escorts, for all intents and purposes, today, cannot hide.
@@start3215 both have their own victory and defeat,but thats not the reason Ottoman Empire collapse i don't care if you are the number 1 fanboy of Russia grow up a little 👍.
Russia just lost its Black Sea flag ship, the Moskva, a few hours ago to a couple of Ukrainian Neptune missiles. To respond to your comment at the end of the video, I'd put my money on the Ukrainians...and they don't even really have a navy right now.
And you are gullible enough to believe the fake Ukrainian propaganda that played you for a chump. How about that "Ghost of Kiev" story? All bullfeces propaganda to help keep your head in the sand.
You did lack one of the historically huge impacts on US-navy-designs: The ships need to operate across the Pacific, so the US-Navy did have rather long-range and therefore lightly armed ships.
Slava class has a range of 5,600 km at 18 kts. Ticonderoga class has a range of 11,000km at 20 kts. Arleigh Burke class has a range of 8,100 km at 20 kts.
I've never been in the military myself, but I love learning about it. Please never stop making these videos. Civilians like myself need insight into this world.
Imagine, just imagine, that place got hit by Kamikaze nutjob. I am thinking Russia is trying to repeat the design failure of Japanese carrier from WW2 they burn really easy.
@@kbo8029 It's ok, the Russians are notoriously terrible at carrier landings so having a missile tube open on deck is only marginally going to decrease the chances of a successful landing
Depends where you look. The US Navy largest conventionally armed, missiles carrying vessels are deployed underwater. Ohio class SSGNs can carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles + Harpoon missiles.
Ohio being only exception. Russian subs carry quite a bit as well.... in Russia they even call them heavy missile cruisers. www.hisutton.com/World-Submarine-Ranking-Weapons-Load.html
@@ceaschannle5752Yasen class carries 41% of the Ohio SSGN capacity. From a former submariner (link below), Soviet/Russian subs lost stealth due to high automation and *failure to maintain.* Soviet/Russian nuclear reactor accident rate is *significantly* higher. They lost *many* operational subs. th-cam.com/channels/9bMgCQyFNaMPsK9GtzM5dQ.html
@@BV-fr8bf The Yasen carries considerably larger and faster missiles though. The Ohio SSGN isn't really an optimal design. Ideally, many of the Tomahawks would be replaced by fewer, larger missiles, but the U.S. has been somewhat neglecting cruise missile development for decades, and the only thing they had to arm the Ohio with was the Tomahawk, so they just put in lots and lots of them.
@@TonboIV the larger the missile the easier to shoot it out of the sky, especially once the laser weapons come online in full. Ideally you'd have many smaller missiles that travel at high speed to overwhelm missile defenses. Saturation attacks for missiles will eventually be the only effective means. Which is why you're seeing U.S. and China investing heavily in laser weapons and Railguns. Both, once operational and having the bugs worked out, will be far more cost effective than a multi-million dollar missile that can be shot out of the sky.
I think you're correct in short analysis. Role and doctrine are different and for good reasons. Also budget. The USA has global reach and needs a very large budget and can achieve much of what is requires. Russia must compromise and will try to get the "best bang for it's buck".
'The USA has global reach' -> this also means ships need more space for fuel, provisions and other ship things, so less space to cram missile in. Range and the option to easily operate far away from (home) ports also costs space.
American warships also carry more reloads The Russian ships and crews are considered expendable. Directions believe in probably correctly didn't if they don't kill the enemy with the first strike they are dead
Probably doesn't help that Putin and his army of hangers-on siphons off hundreds of billions of dollars per annum from public funds. Imagine what a superpower Russia could be if it was not run by corrupt officials. That's why corruption is good!
There are similar doctrinal differences in the air, where Russia see's less need for stealth as they would expect to operate aircraft defensively in conjunction with ground based radars and weapons systems, while the US expects to operate offensively in red airspace. Offensive doctrine is inherently more expensive, providing Russia the possibility of defending itself successfully on a much smaller budget.
@@threethrushes imagine how much good america could do if its corruption wouldnt run this deep. The military industrial complex has been a hindrance towards peace for decades
Honestly the primary reason is that Russia knew that they could never match the industrial output of the US when it came to naval ships while also attempting to maintain a formidable ground combat force. So they focused on 2 things. The first was a large air force that was capable (in theory) of overwhelming a CVBG's air defense, and the second was knowing that they were going to be at a 4 or 5 to one disadvantage in surface combatants they focused on packing as much firepower into what ships they had. Again focusing primarily on a surface to surface capability to supplement their air force. And No, I don't have a degree in Defense and Strategic Studies from West Point, but I did spend some of min time in the US Navy studying Russian Cold War and Post Cold War naval doctrine and tactics.
The main reason is that Russia didn't truly need much of a Navy, aside from their subs. They needed subs to counter our nuclear triad and form their own, otherwise they didn't have a lot to gain. Their surface Navy really only existed to protect their own shores, they did not need to project force like the US did. Offensively, everywhere the would need to attack with conventional forces they could simply gas up the tanks and trucks then drive there. By comparison, the US has to cross oceans to get to any potential fight. So we had very different needs from our respective navies.
@@julianraiders1112 They don't anymore but in the '70s, '80s, and early '90s their airforce rivaled that of the United States. They needed an airforce large enough to contest the US in the GIUK gap. They couldn't rely on just their subs because the US's advancements in ASW assured that they'd be of limited use against a CVBG. They instead relied on an overwhelming coordinated missile strike delivered by their Navy, and Airforce.
@@Elthenar Well said. They had 2 completely different strategic doctrines based on their geographic situations. Each of those doctrines also included provisions for countering their geopolitical rival.
@@thongdinhngo8337 Yeah, basically. It is analogous to the obsession the British had with battlecruisers in WW1. Lightly armored, fast and packed as much punch as battleships. But if they got hit, boom. That is why despite significant advantages, the British took 2.5:1 losses at Jutland.
@@RTWPimpmachine Right. NATO ships have less armed as a trade off for better protection and ammunition concealment. Packing a lot of ammunition without place to store make it become a floating bomb itself
@@thongdinhngo8337 Apparently so. Those cruise missiles were never meant to take out a warship the size of the Moskva so it was the secondary explosions that did the bulk of the damage. What it says also is that amphibious operations against the Odessa area are probably out of the question as Russian ships are apparently sitting ducks for land based anti-ship missiles.
@@Querens In the late 1980s, Russia's initial agreement to serve Pepsi in their country was about to expire, but this time, their vodka wasn't going to be enough to cover the cost. So, the Russians did what any country would do in desperate times: They traded Pepsi a fleet of subs and boats for a whole lot of soda. The new agreement included 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer.
@@collguyjoe99 lol, I didn't know anything like that. Will try to find some info about it. Obviously they wouldn't put anything like that on air. Well, in the late 80-s USSR was already colapsing due to its born dead economy so I'm not surprised.
When they get to build the 60th+ one that works well it may be worth discussing. Until then - just note that the two navies aren't closely comparable. One is likely sufficient for defense deterrent, the other is capable of changing global policy by the mere idea that they might show up.
russia's geography doesnt exactly require their navy to field a blue water navy to be effective though. most of its conflicts are fought with its land neighbors. most of its strategic assets and complexes are located deep inland. even the cities that are situated on the coast are located within gulfs/bays/other highly strategic geographic regions which allow them to apply their bastion doctrine effectively. russia will not fight the us navy in the middle of pacific like the japanese. hence i dont really see how the us navy can overwhelm the russian navy in a war. though in a conventional war, the us air force will still completely inundate the russian defenses
I once saw the Admiral Pantaleyev IRL and was astounded by the how aggressive it looked compared to the frigates my country uses. 2 main guns, huge missile tubes and circular ASW rocket launchers all of which were clearly visible from 2 miles out. Made me think about this very topic
The issue is that a US ship will never go into battle against an enemy navy alone. The US doctrine still mostly focuses on fleets of ships (occasionally, a US ship will sail alone, but that's the exception,rather than the rule)
Unless your ship is a submarine. :-p Then solitary is the rule. Run Silent, Run Deep, Run Alone... Destroy the threat, leave behind a Kilroy was here sign.
Fun fact about VLS: A lot of ports will NOT allow boats to dock if they have VLS. I think this has something to do with their ease in striking land targets. I was stationed on the Jefferson City, USS 759. It was a submarine with VLS; we basically couldn't visit any foreign port because of this.
@@reee_4067 exactely, not much of warm ports aside of those in Murmans and on the Pacific coast. Russia is continental Empire and USA is blue seas / oceanic Empire.
@@mr.smiley4263 >we have air superiority! S-300, S-400 and S-500. PANTSIR, TOR, Kashtan CIWS. not to mention that Russia's sub fleet is undoubtebly superior by all means. underestimating your competitor is the first thing to lose
@@jerromedrakejr9332 He's not wrong, Putin isn't the great man like the internet thinks, he's an brutal dictator. Not even near democratic. You would have known this if you had seen the Russian protests. Literally allows himself to be bribed by Russian billionaires. People in the internet only support him because of his crazy photographs.
@William Hendrix missiles had nothing to do with it, projection of airpower was the sole reason, a squadron of naval aircraft cost a fraction of the resources necessary to build a battleship, while the CV itself never directly engaged an enemy vessel while a BB had to directly do exactly that. the maturation of military aircraft is the single biggest change to modern warfare, and this was realized during WW2.
Hmmmm i agree with u but what william said also true anyway. It's both the cv and missiles that end the bb's career. Yes, cv's deterrent power comes from their attack aircrafts. However their aircraft's qualities are determined by their avionics &.. air to surface missile technologies. The same goes w/ surface to surface missiles, especially when attack aircraft weren't available or air strike mission weren't possible on the area due to several reason, such as a heavily defended anti air area, thus surface to surface missile is most reliable & viable method for the situation.
@@thunderboltcougar5626 dude you are talking about modern tech, battleships died out long before that during an era when things like guided missiles were in their infancy and actually posed little threat if any at all, massed formations of aircraft swarming a massive target like a battleships , armed with bombs designed to pen deck armor is what ended the era of battleships, missiles don't come into it at all.
America was the first with VLS, IFF, CIWS and a system like Aegis. Russia used the outgun approach as a counter. Unfortunately today, the world has caught up. Russia has the same tech today while keeping the outgun philosophy. Simply put, yes it is a difference in doctrine but now Russia has the same tech on top of it and China is not far behind.
The reason is simple: the USSR didn't operate the fleet aircraft carriers the US did. So ultimately the offensive capabilities of each Soviet ship made up for the lack of aircraft strike capabilities. Also, they weren't intended for the same missions. The US Navy was crafted around a wartime mission of ensuring continued and unobstructed use of the SLOC from CONUS to Europe, ensuring logistical supply and military reinforcement would be available during a land war in Europe against the USSR. The mission of the USSR, on the other hand, was to delay/ degrade the resupply and reinforcement of NATO from CONUS allowing a soviet victory in the land war. The modern Russian Navy has inherited that design strategy even if it's not as applicable to their mission now as it had been then. Also, the fundamental peace time mission of every Navy is power projection, and without a true aircraft carrier of their own the Russians use their surface combatants as a substitute.
That's what I was thinking. Modern naval warfare revolves around carriers and aircraft. Russia is compensating for their lack of aircraft/carriers with more heavily armed destroyers/cruisers.
Also, Russia has no great need to keep sea lanes open. Most of their would -be enemies are on their own borders, thus a shorter supply line and very dense anti-aircraft defense to support that. The US has many overseas responsibilities- inherited from being the only power left undamaged by WW2 (the US did not seek world dominance - it was thrust upon America thereby). The commercial economy of US allies relies on American protection and that requires a huge navy. If the countries that rely on American protection would help pay for the US navy, then perhaps Americans could enjoy the same social benefits that many Europeans and others do, like decent socialized medical care, and that nice shortened work week.
Did they ever think that stuffing all the weapons you can in a ship greatly increases the risk of getting ammo racked? They must be quite confident in their defenses and armor if that's the case.
Japanese cruisers did the same thing, only to blow up catastrophically after being hit with 5in shells that on paper weren't a threat to their armor - because of all the explosive things they had on their decks.
Well, the Russians use their navy with the idea that they will be fighting in the home front, meaning that any US Carrier Group would be outmatched in missiles, guns and aircraft. And they would be outmatched because its easier to mobilize 200 aircrafts from several airfields nearby than carry and operate all across the ocean. And then you add all the SAM batteries that they can muster near the border, all the ballistic missiles, submarines and etc. So it makes sense to pack everything there because even a big barrage of missiles have way more chance to be fully intercepted by Russian Navy then the other way around just because the sheer amount of missiles, radars and air defenses. And they are bound to lose ships in these kinds of situations anyway. It would take a single cruise missile to sink any ship on both sides anyway (and that includes US carriers *because* they carry a ungodly amount of fuel, missiles and flamable stuff all packed together, so one good hit and everything goes up in flames by secondary explosions and even if it doesnt sink, it will just become a giant ball of flame and we've seen the amount of damage that a electric fire alone can do on a ship, much less secondary explosions).
@@mzach2828 But those airplanes would have to function in enemy's airspace. Not only that, but if manpads are doing that kind of damage in Russian airplanes, those S-400, S-500 will do the same to US planes. Couple that with all the other batteries, plus the AA from the ships, combined with air power, a aircraft carrier wing would have massive problems. Then there is the risk of losing those ships, etc. Air power alone doesn't win ears though. Afghanistan is a example of that.
@@Melanrick yea but us got the most air power and the most sea power. So please tell me how russia would actually defeat the US I don’t think Russians really believe they can beat the us in a war as of yet.
"you see Ivan, if we put shit tonnes of weapon in our ships, we wouldn't miss the target! Right?" "Da Boris, let's do the same thing with helicopters, tanks and Fighter jets."
Nor you will find Russian warships alone. They will definitely move in group to increase the probability their ASMs salvos will saturate Carrier strike group defenses and reach the carrier.
@@baskapat5239 what good does it do for us?And from what I know our Atlas V uses their engines,and also Russia takes our astronauts to the space station and back.Beacause our Challenger and Columbia went kaboom.We have nothing to brag about,even our grand grand children will be paying of our debt.Everything we have is borrowed!Not that great if you ask me.That flag on the moon is not making us any money.While Russia on the other hand has no debt whatsoever.We are not that great as Hollywood depicts us.We are a joke at this point
The Ukrainians may have just proved you might want to hold up on putting your money on the Russians. Maybe a bunch of smaller ships instead of one bigger ship is better in this day and age.
The answer is the "mission" of each navy. This is similar to Germany's High Seas Fleet and Britain's Grand Fleet. One navy is designed primarily for coastal defense. Or at least battles in relative proximity to the mainland. The other is designed for Blue-Water missions. The navy for the Blue Water mission has to take more space for logistical necessities. And take into greater account crew comfort. And also leave room for maintenance. Since being out on the sea more often creates different maintenance requirements in multiple locations. While coastal navies can do without any of that.
The Russian navy uses ship large anti-ship missiles with high speed, long range and, large warheads because they do not have an aircraft carrier force to project power over the horizon or, protect their fleet from enemy aircraft carrier being within the long range enemy missiles!
Russian navy is a defense navy. It uses ASCMs that are guided by airborne heavy platforms that spot targets hundreds of miles away and guides missiles towards them. Those platforms are protected by shore-based fighters such as Flankers and Foxhounds. Russian navy also uses heavy missile carrying bombers to attack carrier battle groups. There is no need to spend tens of billions on aircraft carrier when it can be sunk with high probability by a hypersonic missile or ballistic missile. The latter is now available to Russia as it was available for China: medium-range anti-ship ballistic missile with several warheads that'll attack at hypersonic speeds. Given terminal stage maneuvering, they will kill the whole group even without nuclear charge. 3-4 ASMRBM per group, and it's WAY cheaper solution than own aircraft carrier that Russia has no idea what to do with.
@@Max_Da_G it’s not that we don’t know what to do with them, it’s more that there are some pretty big flaws yet and we’d rather buff out the kinks before committing to building more
Good luck getting your gun in range. Also I'll just point out, modern ammunition storage systems for ships have come a long way since Hood. So even if we say a missile hits it's of limited use in that regard.
Because every different ship and weapons system in the United States may support a different congressperson’s district. Spreading things out also maximizes the number of elected officials who can bring good news to their district’s business leaders.
After midnight silently judging comments and stumble upon @TayZonday on a random suggested video. I was 14 when chocolate rain came out. Loved it then, love it now
*in an event of war* "Ivan you see those floating western airfields?" "Da tovarisch!" "I don't want to blyat." "Davai tovarisch Kiril." *launches +100 missiles*
Well, they travel with several escorts. Mess with a Navy ship and you may find that you’ll get far more than the bull’s horns or the russian bear’s grumbling tumbling growls and growns. And russian bears must not have as good a smeller as America’s bears cause we can sniff your ships out much farther away than you can ours.
@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight Russian ships tend to operate in smaller fleets or even solo. They also heavily rely beyond visual range engagements with missile based armament. They also want to overwhelm point defense guns with an many incoming weapons as possible. Once that Russian ship squeezes off that first missile it’s lifespan is limited by how many more it can throw at other ships and how fast it can throw them before it starts to eat return fire
@@matthewcaughey8898 The flaw with your claim is that "beyond visual range" crap. That is OUR term. We ARE capable of such actions. The Russians have severe myopia. Nice try though.
4:34 I WAS THERE FOR THAT, CG 54 Antietam its the cruiser closest to the camera. I have pictures from the stern. One of the only times they let the crew out on the weather decks during Photo Ops
The rail missiles do look awesome, but they are outdated. US ships use to have them, even the early Ticonderoga cruisers had them. All replaced with VLS which can fire a lot faster and other reasons he mentions
Yeah that would be true when talking about the US and it reliance on the tomahawk and saturation attack strategy, a relatively unimpressive subsonic cruise missile, but the yanks don't have anything better besides projects and pipe dreams.
@@myopicthunder Russians are very well known for mass attack doctrine. They don't even bother with similar systems like aegis defense systems as its waste of $ in their eyes. So saturating area with dumb bombs is the way to go. They even had manuals which indicated how many artillery shells you have to land in 1 sq/km to kill/disable 60-65% of entrenched defending force. If i recall correctly it was something near 26 000 shells. Subsonic missiles have negatives as well as positives. Just because missile is fast doesn't mean its automatically better. Technology wise west is superior, but it lacks in quantity. Russia where life is cheap, mass produced average solutions is usually the way to go. Or as russians would say. Net analog v mire.
@@karma7683 hilarious, the US navy can't defend itself against P700s and P800s from the 70s ntm hypersonic missiles. You're also convulating Soviet with Russian and WW2 artillery with modern naval warfare.
"Why are Russian ships more heavily armed" Zumwalt: "Ima ahead out" Edit: the two ships are built around two different types of mindsets from two different countries the zumwalt is made to protect aircraft carriers the Russian ships are made to kill aircraft carriers
Large as a cruiser, armament of a destroyer (worse since there is basically no ammo for their guns), the crew of a frigate. It just doesn't make sense to my inexperienced, untrained, shipbuilding logic.
I love how you answer the actual question, unlike so many other people and making videos about what if this or what if that or who would win, and at the end they say let me know what you think.... Like wtf...?
@Bro Momento eeeeeh, idk, it didn't work out with videogames, since the politicians aren't biased at all, it didn't work out with military projects, since they always go overbudget, it didn't work with NASA, since they always go overbudget (SLS, Space Shuttle, etc.)... i really don't know
Another big factor to consider is that the Russian Federation just has fewer ships. If you have fewer, and losing a single ship can be a major blow to your force projection ability, and defensive capacity, you better make sure those few ships can practically win a war at sea all on their own. That, and as opposed to the US forces, they don't have as many massive carriers that they need to defend, and don't use large scale fleet tactics often. When you have more ships, those ships can work cooperatively t put out more firepower with less weapons. And if each ship has less weapons, they can pack more ammo for those few weapons for a much longer engagement period. Where the US use a force through numbers approach the RF have always been more about *breakthrough* vehicles that can take the hits and dish them right back out. Except in their airforce, they only really started to take an interest in multi-role aircraft around the Cold War era. Eventually their naval forces may grow to reflect this, but of course, making more carriers and more advanced carriers takes a lot of time and money, which they rarely have enough of.
I mean I’m just guessing. But if you think about ww2 when there were actually ship battles. The catastrophic damage was taken when the gun battery was hit. A simple 1,000 lb bomb didn’t do much damage. Now when it hit the 100 -500lb explosive shells then the whole ship went bye bye.
Well I mean.... the ticonderoga is smaller and can carry more missiles and has one more canon than the slava class. Without even mentioning ESSM; but an arleigh burke, if the front VLS is all ESSM, can carry 192 missiles. Which is a lot of missile while still leaving 48 tubes for other stuff like tomahawk, SM2/3/6, Anti-ship. Additionally the CRAM is a significantly better CIWS than the gun based ones as it has longer range and is fire and forget meaning it can rapidly engage more targets.
If you think about it, one of the reasons the AEGIS system is designed with so many missiles of dedicated anti-air capability is to make sure that if a Russian ship fires its anti-ship missiles at them, there is enough ammo to ensure none of them get through. Of course it is useful against aircraft too, but usually it's the US that has the air superiority at any given time, especially if a carrier group is nearby.
Plus it's standard USN doctrine to fire at least 2 missiles per target, to ensure a successful kill. So it's important they have plentiful anti-air missiles as effectively you can target at most half the number of your missiles.
@@la7dfa do you have any idea i have a vip tour with the philippine pressident and defence secretary of our country inside 2 ships the kilo class submarine and the corvete ship dock in our naval base in clark now we saw vodka but they seems not addicted and they like filipino drinks than vodka but they control alcohol for they are ready for atack
When I served on a USN cruiser in the 1980s, the Combat Systems Officer was fond of saying, Our principal weapons systems is the F-16. Meaning the fighter jets from the carrier 50 or more miles away would be vectored by us to attack the enemy. Surface ships work with the carrier aircraft (and other aircraft, if available). It is not expected they will be out on their own in ship-to-ship duels. Also the video does not touch on the role of submarines. So far as the submarines are concerned, all those heavily-armed Russian (or Chinese) ships are just more targets.
On a Russian ship, every time you step onto the weather decks, you’d run into a weapon system, either gun or missile launcher. I like the Russian warships better. 0:23-RIM-8 Talos anti-aircraft missile 1:18-that's a Udaloy-class destroyer with its one 100mm gun mount and SS-N-14 Silex missiles removed. What's it armed with, now?
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Большие_противолодочные_корабли_проекта_1155#Оценка_проекта "...A source in the main headquarters of the Navy told Izvestia that the 30-year-old BODs will be equipped with modern A-190 Universal cannons, Caliber, Zircon, Onyx and Uranus missiles. - Thanks to this alteration, the BODs will actually become destroyers and will be able to destroy not only submarines, but also surface ships, aircraft, missiles and ground objects. That is, they will become universal warships, - explained the interlocutor of the publication. According to him, the modernization of the BOD 1155, according to preliminary calculations, will cost 2 billion rubles for each ship, while the cost of building a new destroyer of a comparable level starts at 30 billion rubles. The retired admiral Vladimir Zakharov explained to Izvestia that the modernization of the BOD 1155 will make it possible to obtain a ship that meets all the vital requirements of the fleet in a short time. - The new destroyer of the far sea zone, which will be able to replace the Udaloy, will appear no earlier than 2020. New ships of such a displacement as the BOD 1155 are not even included in the project yet. And from modern ships, only Project 22350 frigates have such functions as it has. But they are almost two times smaller, so they are less autonomous - they cannot sail far from the base - and carry less weapons, - Zakharov explained." ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Большие_противолодочные_корабли_проекта_1155#Модернизация_БПК_«Маршал_Шапошников» "Since February 11, 2016, the Marshal Shaposhnikov is undergoing modernization at the Dalzavod Ship Repair Center (Vladivostok). ... Thus, as a result of the modernization, it is planned to install 8 Uranium anti-ship missiles and a Caliber complex with a 16-cell UVP on the ship. On July 10, 2020, Marshal Shaposhnikov entered the Sea of Japan to conduct factory sea trials. On the ship, the outboard fittings and hull structures were repaired, new equipment was installed. More than 20% of the ship's superstructure were dismantled and re-manufactured. Trunk cable routes were partially replaced. The Kalibr-NK and Uranium strike missile systems have been installed, and a new artillery mount has been mounted. After checking the operation of the main power plant at sea, the ship will return to the Dalzavod pier. The return of the ship to the fleet was originally planned for the end of 2020 [5], but in fact it happened only at the end of April 2021. As a result of the modernization, the following were installed: Instead of the bow 100-mm artillery mount AK-100, there is a new 100-mm AU A-190-01 in stealth design. Instead of the second AK-100 tower, there are two UVP 3S14 modules of the Kalibr-NK complex, 8 cells each (16 cells in total). UVP allows the use of anti-ship missiles 3M54, medium-range cruise missiles 3M14, anti-ship missiles "Onyx", anti-ship missiles 3K22 "Zircon" and PLUR 91RT. Instead of two launchers of antisubmarine missiles "Rastrub" - two launchers 3S24 of the "Uran" complex, 4 containers for anti-ship missiles each. On the top of the foremast, where the Project 1155 BOD has a low-flying target detection radar MR-350 "Podkat" (it was absent on Marshal Shaposhnikov), there is a general detection radar 5P-30N2 "Fregat-H2". MSO for ship artillery MR-123-02 / 3 "Bagheera"; Electronic warfare complex TK-25-2; Communication complex R-779-28."
@@kempmt1 ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Военно-морской_флот_Российской_Федерации#Модернизация "Modernization. It is planned to carry out a large-scale modernization: TAVKR project 1143 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" (until 2020) [79] [80]. First of all, the insufficiently reliable boiler and turbine power plant will be replaced by a gas turbine power plant or a nuclear power plant. The existing missile launchers 3M45 P-700 Granit will be dismantled. Consequently, it will be possible to increase the hangar up to 4500-5000 m² to accommodate an additional number of aircraft. The ship's air defense will be strengthened by replacing the 3K95 Dagger air defense system with a new system with 80-120 new generation medium-range anti-aircraft missiles. In combination with the new air defense system, 4-6 Pantsir-S1 air defense missile systems will be installed. The ship's fleet will consist of 26 new MiG-29K fighters, plus the Navy has an intention to extend the service life of heavy carrier-based Su-33 fighters (20 aircraft [81]) for at least five years, [42] or even until 2025 [43], and also helicopters and a naval version of the fifth generation SU-57 fighters, which is currently being developed. It seems that 15-20 promising fighters will be built before the aircraft carrier is re-entered into the fleet, which will most likely take place in 2020 [82]. Two heavy nuclear missile cruisers of Project 1144 "Orlan": "Admiral Nakhimov" (repairs should be completed by 2021 [83] [84]), "Peter the Great" (under repair until 2020) [80] [85] [86] ... The cruisers Kirov and Admiral Lazarev are awaiting disposal [87] [88]. The main acquisition of the cruisers will be the UKSK, the newest universal shipborne firing systems. It will be possible to install missiles "Onyx", "Caliber" and, in the future, "Zircon" into the same launch containers, which will become the main weapon. In addition, air defense will be strengthened: the S-400 and new melee air defense systems. In total, taking into account anti-aircraft missiles, "Orlans" will carry more than 300 missiles of various types [89]. Submarines of project 949A "Antey", [90] with the possible completion of the laid hulls of this project [91]. The project will receive new information, navigation and communication systems, hydroacoustic equipment [92]. Striking power will also increase: the Caliber-PL complex will replace the outdated Granites [90]. All boats of projects 971 "Pike-B" and 877 "Halibut" for the missile system "Caliber-PL" [93]. Titanium boats of projects 945 "Barracuda" and 945A "Condor", after its completion, the boats will be similar in combat characteristics to the boats of project 885 [94]. The boats will receive new sonar stations, combat information and control systems, radars with an electronic reconnaissance station, and a navigation system based on GLONASS / GPS. In addition, the boats will change weapons systems and teach them to shoot cruise missiles from the "Caliber-PL" complex [94]. BOD project 1155. The BOD will be equipped with modern A-192 cannons, Caliber missiles and the latest air defense and missile defense system with S-400 Redut missiles. Thanks to this alteration, the BODs will actually become destroyers and will be able to destroy not only submarines, but also surface ships, aircraft, missiles and ground objects. That is, they will become universal warships [95]. " ________________________________________ The modernization plan is big. I found a table on the Russian wiki, but there is no analogue on the English wiki. If I insert it here, it will blur. Try to upload the link to google translate. ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_кораблей_Военно-морского_флота_Российской_Федерации#Сводная_таблица_модернизированных_боевых_кораблей_ВМФ_России
The basic lesson of naval warfare was changed forever when the Japanese sunk the Repulse and Prince of Wales during WW2: Naval Aviation is superior to any surface ship, regardless of how well armed they are. The Russian Battlecruisers would stand no chance against a carrier strike group, which is what it would have to face from long range. Sure it would likely shoot down some planes and American missiles, but it could not survive a swarm. As soon as it gets hit once or twice, critical systems will start going down and it will be over. That is the reality of why Americans have different doctrine.
And that is why Russian Battlecruisers still carry Nuclear Anti-ship missiles while the US Navy puts its faith on stealthy F-35s to get the job done. In either case whomever is quicker to the draw will win.
@@honkhonk8009 well, they're running joint maneuvers atm and I wouldn't be surprised if they made a deal exchanging support for Russian claim to arctic for support for Chinese claim for... Well, everything south and east of China lol
US Ticonderoga Class carries 122 VLCs typically 80 SM2 and at least 26 Tomahawks, while it is outgunned by the Kirov which is almost 3 times the displacement, it gives the Slava and others a run for the money. The Arleigh Burke carries 96 VLCs and therefore carries more "big missiles" than its direct Russian competitor. What Russian ships indeed do have is a much heavier CIWS starting from the small missile boat to the big Kirov class which has either 8 Phalanx type guns or 6 more sophisticated Kashtan hybrid gun missile systems. Most western ships have 2 tops Phalanx oder RIM type CIWS, US aircraft carriers carry some more but the brand new Queen Elisabeth class British carrier carries just 3 Phalanx and no other defense missiles.
those comparisons are relevant for blue water operations. If we have to project power onto a coastline, I don't see how a big, juicy target like a carrier will be able to fend off the very large amount of missiles which will be able to be fired from land. We need to diversify. Keep some of the carriers for blue water ops, but against coastlines vs. major industrial powers, drone carriers should be stealth ships or even stealth submarines.
@lunthang hangsing thats why half a million americans are sleeping in the streets and btw your country keeps killing innocent people in middle east. dont even try to argue about it
Why are Russian ships more heavily armed compared to the US? Short answer: Because, one, the Russians have few platforms out there and in order to make up for the numbers to be able to counter US Carrier Battle Groups (CBG) they needed those few platforms to be filled to the brim with weapons and, two, their doctrine was to leverage the success of their land based missiles that were huge, fast and scary. Long answer: Three reasons (sorry if it seems I am promoting USN fleet dominance). • Asymmetry • Leverage • Size And then, that is just not true. They are not. Let me explain. The Russian naval doctrine on offensive weapons, like much else, has traditionally focused on asymmetric weapon development because they cannot compete with the US budget. A missile costs less than a fighter and less than a ship. And if those missiles can destroy or mission kill their targets, then asymmetry worked (and it did for some time). The heavy investment by Russia in the Iskander type missiles (9K720 Iskander - Wikipedia), also an asymmetric weapon that would have incapacitated NATOs superior air-power in case of a conflict in Europe during the post-cold war, made it a natural consideration to leverage that technology for a naval type missile, and so they where developed as well. The incredible size of these missiles for naval use required ships designed around a launcher. That’s why the Slava type cruiser, that have a displacement close that of a US Burke destroyer (10 to 12 thousand tons), with only 16 of those seem to be so heavily armed. Russia has only 3 of these in active service. Slava-class cruiser - Wikipedia (aside: From a propaganda perspective these missiles where perfect. Their sheer size and seeming sophistication would scare the crap out of any ill-advised adversary or embolden any constituent or fanatic). Then there are the Kirov battle-cruisers (Kirov-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia). Of these behemoths there is only one in service. They are huge, 25 thousand tons of displacement, on account of being designed to carry 20 P-700 missiles (P-700 Granit - Wikipedia). So just by looking at them, the Slava and Kirov, it seems evident they ARE heavily very armored compared to the US ships. But that is not necessarily a strength. The doctrine was that those ships would fire their complete salvo of missiles at a US carrier and trust they would be able to (i) find the carrier, (2) saturate the carrier’s defenses and (iii) trust they would succeed as they had no more missiles to fire. But that offensive doctrine was and is greatly lacking because: • Russia has 3 Slavas and 1 Kirov in operation. The proportion of 4 “heavily armored” looking ships hardly constitutes a characteristic of their navy. • The only other ships with over 5,000 tons of displacement that Russia has are the Sovremennyy class that carrier only 8 “sunburn” missiles, of which they only have 5 in service. • All the other 34 currently operating ships of the Russian Navy (3 Ad-Grigovorich, 4 Krivack, 12 Buyan, 6 Gepard, 7 Steregushchiy and 2 Gremyashchiy) are much lighter (see: List of equipment in the Russian Navy - Wikipedia) and do not have that menacing appearance. But even if we look into the Kirov and Slava ships only, the fact is, that the “heavily armored” perception is, well, that, just an optical illusion. For two reasons. Reason one: Those “old” ships and their big and fast missiles where never really a threat to US carriers, or their escorts, because those HUGE and FAST things cannot complete the kill-chain to hit a moving ship. Here I write about that: If two Kirov Battlecruisers and three Slava class cruisers (all modernized) launched all their anti ship missiles at an American carrier task force from a range of 650-700 km would the American fleet take any casualties? They will do worse today as the AEGIS system that was developed as a response to their threat is getting upgraded (AN/SPY-6 - Wikipedia). Also important to consider the US has 68 Burke destroyers in service. That is 17 times as many as the 4 “menacing looking” ships Russia currently operates). Reason two: A US Burke has more firepower than any of those boats. In part because it has 96 mk41 VLS (Mark 41 Vertical Launching System - Wikipedia) that make up in numbers what the huge 20 missiles that a Kirov has or 8 of the Slava, but more importantly because it has the company of this more often than not. And as part of a Carrier Battle Group, the Burkes have at least 70 fighters that can deliver ordnance on an enemy with blistering speed and huge depth. How huge is that depth? Those 20 Granit P-700 missiles weigh 7 tons each (and the war-head 750 kg of explosive). Each F-18 E/F on a carrier can carry just over those 7 tons in ordnance. That means one flight of 50 planes can deliver 2.5 times the raw tonnage of the complete offensive salvo of the HUGE Kirov. And they can do it every 3-4 hours continuously. Thanks for reading.
List a war which Russia, or the USSR for that matter, initiated. Then google for "US history of military interventions". There you have the reason why the different doctrine. All Russia aims at, is defend itself. All the US has been doing, right from the start of its creation and up to today, is attack and invade other countries.
The reason is the same as with a lot of Russian construction philosophy, it is not the best let's just make it hit hard and cheap. It has worked with varied success throughout history
Russian Minister of Armament:
"Ivan, you see all this free space we have here on this ship?"
Yes Blyat
"Well, I don't want to"
perfect
🤣
Russia must be fuming at this leak.
I think you meant yes blin not yes blyat, because what you said was "Yes fuck."
@@richardmillhousenixon I know what I said, and it is what I wanted to say
USA: Aircraft Carriers
Russia: Missile Carriers
Japan: Destroyer with Aircraft
@@monmonfiasco6391 WW2 Japan: Submarine with aircraft
I would not like to be on a carrier, especially when Russia as the right idea on fighting a modern war you don't build carriers they are easy targets, look how many ships were sunk in ww11, not safe on a ship or a tank etc ect I would rather be on foot than perched on a ship, it's not about how big our aircraft carrier is it's about men putting their lives at risk by being part of the target, it's all about the missiles now modern warfare will be different as it proves ww1 was not close to ww11 and ww111 will be more ferocious than ww11 ships would play a small part but would be sunk early on as to maintain distance planes would be easy targets on both sides, sub's would be the best bet but once they loose of missiles they probably could be tracked and turned into watery graves, most probably some military nutter out there probably thinks a nuclear war can be won, I don't think so all involved in this ww111 will of wished they were nether born, END OF.
@@stephenlamb9008 With the obvious rise of the CCP (and it's "we're gonna dominate the world" rhetoric, I don't think we will need to concern ourselves with the Russians and Americans going head to head. Seems to me they might suddenly become fast friends and allies over a shared concern.
@@michaeldobson107 have you ever considered that western paranoia is the only reason our relations are bad to begin with? And yes I Understand the Soviet Union had its unpleasant moments, but that’s fizzled out at this point.
Welcome to the Covert Cabal comment section where everyone has a degree in Defense and Strategic Studies from West Point
Yep, so many modern warfare experts here, that the US DoD is foolish to employ expensive consultants and 'think tanks', when all they need do is read the comments here. 😁
I wasn't aware that West Point was an degree-awarding body.
(edit: 150 comments later, I am now aware.)
Annapolis
I got mine from fruit loops.. does that count?
@@Puzzoozoo well to be frank, US do burn lots of money into the geniuses who isn't exactly genius.
Simply put, it's too expensive for another navy to seriously challenge the balance of power amongst blue water navies. Between the member nations (especially the US), NATO has an almost unassailable advantage in aircraft carriers and their associated escorts. It makes no sense for the Russians or Chinese to try to build Carriers and their associated escorts because they'd bankrupt themselves and probably still fail to close the gap. However, by operating their own, heavily armed coastal fleets under an umbrella of friendly air/SAM cover, the theory runs that they will be able to keep the US Carriers farther out to sea and therefore less able to support US amphibious operations.
This is all logical given the global positions of the relative nations. China has never exhibited any interest in military expansion outside of its own sphere in East Asia (mainly because governing a quarter of the world's population keeps them plenty busy). Putin has aspirations to reacquire territories that once belonged to the Russian Empire, but those all have land borders with Russia. Thus, neither China nor Russia is likely to become involved in a war that would require a blue seas fleet. The US, on the other hand, is almost guaranteed to fight every conflict overseas. Thus, the US developed a navy to meet is strategic needs and the Russians and Chinese have done the same. Hopefully we never find out which is more effective because if we do, a lot of good people will die.
Yea honestly, I was thinking the Russians can easily blow a hole in any of the United States ships and sink it, but at what cost? Their ships sinking too due to 24 Guided missiles that found their target 3 mins later….it would be total loss no body would be fighting for anything but their own lives at that point.
@@hudsonmatz2123 Exactly. War of attrition. Russia utilizes a defensive doctrine with it's Navy, while the US is posturing. One is a full costal nation (US) and one is primarily a landlocked-land mass. Why have a huge navy if you don't have a massive stretch of coastal waters.
you structured this in a very digestible & concise way considering the healthy context required to explain, you could be a content creator or teacher for sure bro.
@@vinny5638 I considered it. I spent years in the military and then worked as a security contractor and analyst. However, I'm often busy with school and work and travel which limits my ability to learn and produce quality content. I try to give my perspectives and experience where I can.
They buildiong carriers and china and Russia cannot go bankrupt. It can lack the means to buy products internaitonally esp. if the US et al bars russia from Swift payment system.
Soviet Navy: I paid for the whole deck I M GONNA USE THE WHOLE DECK
We*
@@MartyGlaubitz lol thats doesn’t make sense.
@@GTBANNA its because you not 1% Russian my comrade.
@@GTBANNA you need to learn about OUR communism
@@electricalcoconut979 lol good Russia sucks. Long live the USA 🇺🇸
US: Floating airfields
Russia: Floating missile platforms
US: 11 Floating airfields + accompanying armadas
Russia: Floating missile platforms
US + nato we just annihilate Russia.
The British type 46 has a bigger gun and much better Air protection.
@@tomtdh4903 Bruh Type 46 would get stomped on by the Kirov.
@@lolasdm6959 it has a bigger naval gun and much better air defence they can track 1000 missiles coming in at one time. It’s literally the best in the world.
@@lolasdm6959 Sea Viper can launch eight missiles in 10 seconds and simultaneously guide up to 16 missiles at a time
Russian radar operator "Captain,threat detected "
Captain "Fire EVERYTHING ".
😏
Epic
That's about right !!!
then the captain get fired!
Russians in Evangelion be like..
As a veteran US Navy sailor, we use to make fun of how overloaded with weapon systems they were. More weapons just makes it easier to land a shot to light up the weapons stores and more systems that can fail and not work. Ask the crew of the Moskva how all those weapons and countermeasures worked for them.
Moskva be like
That's what I was thinking.. It'd be like targeting an ammunition dump :0)
What? The ammo at the alright burke or ticon is just as easy to hit as it is with the Moskva.
Lol go send you ship to fight russia. You cant win, you just talk 😭🤣
they were turned off aka his is prove you kow northing of the russian anvy
Russia/USSR has always classified its Carriers as "Aircraft carrying Cruisers" so that they will be allowed to transit through the Bosphourous Straits to access the Black Sea. The Montreux Convention allows Black Sea states to transit "Capital" ships greater than 15Ktons (which is the general warship tonnage limit for non-black sea states) but excludes "Aircraft Carriers"...
but it were not pure aircraft carriers, becuase aircrafts for USSR carriers is AA, not offence weapon. For example Kuznetsov carry aircrafts and antiship missles and its main role to provide AA cover
Some expert level knowledge in here.
@@oatlord it is soviet doctrine man, USSR and Russiaan doctorine is defence not attack...
@@rpgmarshal georgia first started assault, just yesterday European Court of Human Rights told that georgia started war in 08.08.2008. Same as ukranians started assault against russian citizen living in ukraine. BTW in Krimea were made referendum and krea people decide go back to russia, and russian forces made ZERO shots. And what made ukranians? they stopped to SELL water in krimea, not deliver for free, SELL... Pretty good care for own population in krimea from ukraine
@@tsugumorihoney2288 p
The US didn’t abandon the Montana because of Missiles, they abandoned it after midway because the navy saw air power as the way forward
The Montana's were also canceled due to the Panama canal expansion project being canceled as well.
Don't forget the cost
Air and subs probably.
Which in turn pushed the Essex and midway classes to have 30+ Essex class and 3 Midway’s which dwarfed every warship of the time in terms of dimensions
There’s more than one reason for making decisions like that.
"Yuo see Ivan, carry more guns and American misidentify yuo, and think you just from Texas."
as a texan, i can agree to that
Or at the very least, the Americans will just give a thumbs up and keep driving.
What did you just say???
@@MidnightRambler1964 lol
Xdddd
Russia's unique military features that you wouldn't see on any Western-based doctrine armies in the world:
1. Tanks with turret ejection system.
2. Drones with military-grade Canon cameras.
3. Ships with submarine diving capability.
LOL. Their tank turrets turn into aircraft when struck by javelin NLAW…
LMAO how'd this turn out for your little invincible leopards little boy? Pretty sure you set a record for highest flying turret! Good job western puppet!
@@christianballard4813 LMAO how'd this turn out for your little invincible leopards little boy? Pretty sure you set a record for highest flying turret! Good job western puppet!
@@glorihol6803don't cry Mr Putin, your embarrassing yourself.
it`s all funny, but if we`re talking seriously then it`s russian stupid and corrupt generals in HQ, but not a technological failure
The reasons for arming them more heavily are pretty clear. The USSR simply couldn’t field an equivalent carrier-based navy, so they went with a cheaper alternative. Plus Khrushchev was firmly against the idea of big ships, claiming they were nothing but floating targets in the age of missiles
Plus they don't even want to. All you have to do is deny sea access and us will have its panties in a twist.
@@CosmicValkyrie the US doesn need sea access. We can put a warhead anywhere on earth
@@robc4191 so does Russia and China ...lol
@@robc4191 If you can put a warhead anywhere on the Earth, then what is the point of an aircraft carrier? To sit in the middle of the ocean and pee in the water?
@@CosmicValkyrie right because they can deny sea access with their much smaller much older much less advanced navy 😂
Russian Designer: How many guns do you want on this corvette?
Putin: Yes!
Nice!
Yes jokes still going on in 2021... Yes...
putin : how many gun do you have ?
@@fujii_natsuooooo manufucturer: we can put 15
putin: ok, n+1
I can hear it , AHH yes thrn Russian accent
Me minding my own business
The FBI agents: let's recommend him the video about russian warship and see how he reacts.
I think about those scenerio's too. I am probably on multiple watch lists.
Ya
@@Deno2100 On a daily they recommend ISIS vids,and I still watch them🤣🤣
@@akhenatenmuriithi4493 have you seen the abu haajar one? its pure gold
How would they know how you react? I usually scroll to the comment section.
Ukraine sunk a Slava class destroyer with 2 missiles. I'm going to put my $ on the American Navy.
I built lego ships in my childhood and I did the exact thing Russians did to their ships!
Guns & Missiles!
Hell yeah, same here.
My idea of making a good ship was to encrust it in firepower.
... Still kinda is, to be honest...
How to make the perfect Lego Destroyer
Step 1: buy 100 lego destroyers
Step 2: build a floating platform shaped like an empty ship
Step 3: take out all the guns from your 100 Lego Destroyer set and slap them onto the platform shaped like an empty ship
Step 4: Show the model to the Russian Navy and tell them to make a Big and Functioning ship that looks exactly like it
Step 5: Congratulations you now have you own Lego Battleship
Same
I think that is all obvious childhood commonsense. More weapon, more power.
Bigger missiles means bigger ships. I can feel that battleships will be back again.
0:43
“Man, how are we supposed to get this ship across the ocean?”
“Pack it into the back of my ship!”
lol...is that like a maritime tow truck?
I always liked the images of massive cargo freighters carrying other, smaller cargo freighters
@@insertcognomen no. That's a floating dock. Ship's are repaired there.
@@user-oq2rk7ep8f thx for the info
@@user-oq2rk7ep8f Lhugheny's Call of duty MW1 the musical starts and then *INTENSIFIES*
Russian : "Mine is bigger"
American : "Mine is sexy"
Canada : "Mine has a leak"
Bruh
Ok Teal'c of Chulak
A Serpent guard, a Horus guard and a Setesh guard meet on a neutral planet.
It is a tense moment.
The Serpent guard’s eyes glow.
The Horus guard’s beak glistens.
The Setesh guard’s nose drips.
Canada : "Mine is gender neutral"
@@charmingpeasant9834 Carrier Pride Month
China : "Mine was Cheaper!!!!"
Russian warship Moskva sank after ammo compartment exploded following a missile strike. This is downside of being too heavily armed?
Yes and No. To many variables to make a logical decision. War is hell and lady luck does sometimes plays a part in it.
Inside job?
Ever thought about that?
US: aircraft carrier addiction
Russia: missile addiction
I love me Stalin organ.
Eventually, even Aircraft Carriers will be smaller. The rise of AI allows smaller faster drones to maneuver beyond the body’s capabilities under g-force. Its going to be a video game with the next War and mostly drones and robots fighting. Human element will be indoors controlling their equipment.
As a Russian, I gotta admit that you're not wrong. We do have a lot of missiles for different platforms and purposes. lol
@@franz289 just meaning more ways for US to fulfill their Aircraft carrier addiction
@@dmitrit.4862 everyone's addicted to something, for russia it's missiles i guess lmao
*Why russian ships are more heavily armed compared to the us?*
Answer: Because Russia.
Yes he didn't even answered it I was waiting for it😂
@@karltrimillos7955 NOBODY WAS EXPECTING THE SPANISH INQUISITION.
Russian BIAS
y e s
More like because about 2/3 of their stuff doesn't work.
The American naval fleet is massive which means ships rarely travel alone. The Russians on the other hand have a relatively small fleet and have to depend on themselves for protection.
Relative to what? USA? Because Russia has a massive navy. They have many coast towards the sea therefor many of their ships are dispersed in smaller groups. Some of them can regroup and some of them can not (the baltic fleet).
@@holgerchristensen4021 Relative to the US yes. The context is US vs Russian naval doctrine. Not Russia vs Denmark or Norway for example.
@@Raptorftw In term of size Russias navy is not far away from USAs navy.
@@holgerchristensen4021 Oh it absolutely is.
Navies by tonnage:
US: 3 415 893
Russia: 845,730
@@Raptorftw In weigth yep. In numbers nope. USA 415 ships and Russia 352 ships. Normally I would also use the weight as a size of a navy, but it doesnt really tell what the navy is capable of. because a 1.500 tons swedish submarine can sink a gaurded 100.000 tons aircraft carrier.
Because if you can overwhelm the enemy ship's CIWS with enough missiles you will sink it no matter how big it is.
Also having missiles "on deck" helps with ease of refitting the ship with bigger missiles, even if there will be fewer
In effect the US Navy has become almost a floating airforce.
It's the 2nd Largest Airforce in the world actually.
@@slatondragon 2nd who the fuck has the first 😂
@@ajl1218 The US Airforce
@@slatondragon right I see what you did there I didn’t get that at first 😂 now I do 👋🏻
@@ajl1218 And the third largest airforce is the USMC followed by I believe the Air National Guard although they would likely never be forward deployed as their main concern is homeland defense and support.
I'm assuming when Russia developed a laser weapon, they'll slap a disco ball on their warship.
Disco ball: blows up the whole fleet
😂😂
That will be the nuke of the future.
it is already "peresvet"!
That's literally Shin Godzilla, too overpowered and destructive to even exist.
Admiral Kuznetsov: I didn't choose the tug life, the tug life chose me.
The Russian navy has tug boat surpremacy.
@@lolasdm6959 That puts them in a good spot to fight the fishing fleet supremacy of the Chinese though.
@@arkadeepkundu4729 Well sadly China also have frigate surpremacy and corvette surpremacy.
right..... Kuznetsov cannot move on its own......
Just tug enemy continent closer to our plane carrying cruiser
The only reason is that Russia doesn't have the naval airstrike capabilities of the US. That's it and that's all. In place of aircraft carriers and lots of them, they took the cheaper and some may say, more prudent approach, using mass missile strike capability to saturate and overwhelm a carrier strike group.
Taken together with their sub fleet, it appears to be a formidable strategy.
against a carrier with an airwing that will spot you first from a thousands miles away, russian ships would be killed long before they even knew a carrier was in the area
@@eduwino151 Oh, I don't disagree. I think the Russians would be hopelessly outmatched. I'm just explaining the rational the Soviets had.
During the height of the cold war, when asked about the technical superiority of the west, Russia responding saying, "Quantity has a quality all its own."
plus their landmass covers most of the northern hemisphere, so why do they need aircraft carriers when land based and serviced aircraft are so much easier, cheaper, logistically better... hell, they own most of the Arctic circle too, and that's another shortcut to western Europe and North-America .... and the Pacific and nth. Atlantic are handy too
@@lancervi1762 the Germans were very good with quality with heavy tanks and fighters in the Second World War but could never pump out enough to match the Russians, the Brits or the Americans. For every tiger tank it was worth 10 Sherman’s, fortunately for the Americans they always had atleast 11...
@@DontAttme Oh, for sure. Good points all. Though, something about naval warfare makes it seem that analogy doesn't quite work here. Tanks can hide. Subs can hide. Capital ships and escorts, for all intents and purposes, today, cannot hide.
0:45 can we not just skip over a shot of a boat being transported in a dry dock that’s on another boat?
𝖭𝗂𝖼𝖾
Eh. Lots of nations actually have those, they’ve been around since the Interwar Period.
They use it to protect the ship in transit to the ocean
@@sovietred7371 that’s not true lol that’s a floating dock
Russian: Lone wolf strategy.
US: Wolf pack strategy.
Well done: That Pretty much sums it up, except perhaps:
Russian : Lone Siberian Tiger strategy
USA: Wolf pack strategy.
@@start3215 "russia destroyed the mongol empire" lol what historical revisionism are you smoking dude?
@@start3215 "russia destroyed Ottoman Empire" lol what historical revisionism are you smoking dude?
@@start3215 both have their own victory and defeat,but thats not the reason Ottoman Empire collapse i don't care if you are the number 1 fanboy of Russia grow up a little 👍.
@@start3215 oh wow a drama of Catherine the great cool really put some effort in there with ofc Russian own version cool
Russia just lost its Black Sea flag ship, the Moskva, a few hours ago to a couple of Ukrainian Neptune missiles.
To respond to your comment at the end of the video, I'd put my money on the Ukrainians...and they don't even really have a navy right now.
And you are gullible enough to believe the fake Ukrainian propaganda that played you for a chump. How about that "Ghost of Kiev" story? All bullfeces propaganda to help keep your head in the sand.
ok
You did lack one of the historically huge impacts on US-navy-designs: The ships need to operate across the Pacific, so the US-Navy did have rather long-range and therefore lightly armed ships.
America prefers to stow her weapons belowdecks, as well. We love our highly integrated solutions, for better or for worse. 🇺🇸
@@vashapeshka sorry we dont speak commie
Slava class has a range of 5,600 km at 18 kts.
Ticonderoga class has a range of 11,000km at 20 kts.
Arleigh Burke class has a range of 8,100 km at 20 kts.
@@jqbogus what is that in freedom units?
@@PurplePanda1233 A simple km-to-miles converter will do you the trick.
I've never been in the military myself, but I love learning about it. Please never stop making these videos. Civilians like myself need insight into this world.
4:02 WHAT!? They put VLS cells in the bow runway? That’s f^cking genius
Especially when your runway get hit by bomb
@@mrorlov2706 or you can't use it because it's currently trying to fire while those enemy fighters are coming in pretty quickly.
Imagine, just imagine, that place got hit by Kamikaze nutjob. I am thinking Russia is trying to repeat the design failure of Japanese carrier from WW2 they burn really easy.
@@kbo8029 It's ok, the Russians are notoriously terrible at carrier landings so having a missile tube open on deck is only marginally going to decrease the chances of a successful landing
@@mrorlov2706 no ship for enemy to take
Now the Moskwa is the most heavily armed submarine in the Black Sea.
just like the whole Ukrainian navy. i would say a ship for their entire navy is worth it little boy
@@glorihol6803Russia is losing ships to a country without a navy😂. The whole Russian black sea fleet is hiding from Ukraine. Awww no moskva 😢
Depends where you look. The US Navy largest conventionally armed, missiles carrying vessels are deployed underwater. Ohio class SSGNs can carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles + Harpoon missiles.
Ohio being only exception. Russian subs carry quite a bit as well.... in Russia they even call them heavy missile cruisers. www.hisutton.com/World-Submarine-Ranking-Weapons-Load.html
@@ceaschannle5752Yasen class carries 41% of the Ohio SSGN capacity. From a former submariner (link below), Soviet/Russian subs lost stealth due to high automation and *failure to maintain.* Soviet/Russian nuclear reactor accident rate is *significantly* higher. They lost *many* operational subs. th-cam.com/channels/9bMgCQyFNaMPsK9GtzM5dQ.html
@@BV-fr8bf The Yasen carries considerably larger and faster missiles though. The Ohio SSGN isn't really an optimal design. Ideally, many of the Tomahawks would be replaced by fewer, larger missiles, but the U.S. has been somewhat neglecting cruise missile development for decades, and the only thing they had to arm the Ohio with was the Tomahawk, so they just put in lots and lots of them.
@@BV-fr8bf yes like the Kursk
@@TonboIV the larger the missile the easier to shoot it out of the sky, especially once the laser weapons come online in full. Ideally you'd have many smaller missiles that travel at high speed to overwhelm missile defenses. Saturation attacks for missiles will eventually be the only effective means. Which is why you're seeing U.S. and China investing heavily in laser weapons and Railguns. Both, once operational and having the bugs worked out, will be far more cost effective than a multi-million dollar missile that can be shot out of the sky.
I think you're correct in short analysis. Role and doctrine are different and for good reasons. Also budget. The USA has global reach and needs a very large budget and can achieve much of what is requires. Russia must compromise and will try to get the "best bang for it's buck".
'The USA has global reach' -> this also means ships need more space for fuel, provisions and other ship things, so less space to cram missile in. Range and the option to easily operate far away from (home) ports also costs space.
American warships also carry more reloads
The Russian ships and crews are considered expendable. Directions believe in probably correctly didn't if they don't kill the enemy with the first strike they are dead
Probably doesn't help that Putin and his army of hangers-on siphons off hundreds of billions of dollars per annum from public funds.
Imagine what a superpower Russia could be if it was not run by corrupt officials. That's why corruption is good!
There are similar doctrinal differences in the air, where Russia see's less need for stealth as they would expect to operate aircraft defensively in conjunction with ground based radars and weapons systems, while the US expects to operate offensively in red airspace.
Offensive doctrine is inherently more expensive, providing Russia the possibility of defending itself successfully on a much smaller budget.
@@threethrushes imagine how much good america could do if its corruption wouldnt run this deep. The military industrial complex has been a hindrance towards peace for decades
Goddamn, those Kirovs can take on a small nation's entire navy and air force themselves.
Also Moscow cruiser. Massive 16 hyper anti ship.
missiles. It doesnt need to sink it.
I can imagine those Kirov going back in time and destroying an entire fleet ala Axis of Time trilogy.
Zum is an overpriced garbage.
The true power of the US Navy is submerged. 😉
@@projectmungo No, it's the carriers dummy.
The correct answer is to facilitate faster sinking via ammo cookoff. See Moskva.
Honestly the primary reason is that Russia knew that they could never match the industrial output of the US when it came to naval ships while also attempting to maintain a formidable ground combat force. So they focused on 2 things. The first was a large air force that was capable (in theory) of overwhelming a CVBG's air defense, and the second was knowing that they were going to be at a 4 or 5 to one disadvantage in surface combatants they focused on packing as much firepower into what ships they had. Again focusing primarily on a surface to surface capability to supplement their air force.
And No, I don't have a degree in Defense and Strategic Studies from West Point, but I did spend some of min time in the US Navy studying Russian Cold War and Post Cold War naval doctrine and tactics.
I actually built the first battleship During the Cold War era. And I think I remember you in the Cold War.
russia doesnt have a large airforce
The main reason is that Russia didn't truly need much of a Navy, aside from their subs. They needed subs to counter our nuclear triad and form their own, otherwise they didn't have a lot to gain. Their surface Navy really only existed to protect their own shores, they did not need to project force like the US did.
Offensively, everywhere the would need to attack with conventional forces they could simply gas up the tanks and trucks then drive there. By comparison, the US has to cross oceans to get to any potential fight. So we had very different needs from our respective navies.
@@julianraiders1112 They don't anymore but in the '70s, '80s, and early '90s their airforce rivaled that of the United States. They needed an airforce large enough to contest the US in the GIUK gap. They couldn't rely on just their subs because the US's advancements in ASW assured that they'd be of limited use against a CVBG. They instead relied on an overwhelming coordinated missile strike delivered by their Navy, and Airforce.
@@Elthenar Well said. They had 2 completely different strategic doctrines based on their geographic situations. Each of those doctrines also included provisions for countering their geopolitical rival.
The kirov heavy battle cruiser literally looks like a star wars republic star destroyer floating on the water
It looks tough, but looks can be deceiving. In reality, it would not stand a chance against a US destroyer.
@@herbb8547 the kirov is light years ahead of anything in the us navy.the usa couldnt build anything close.
Kirov reporting!
@@frankrenda2519 bruh the thing is like 50 years old and is rusting
@@obiwankenobi3574 same as the most us ships mate, both nato and russia still uses mostly of 1980s modernized equipment
No matter how many weapons you jam on board, it doesn't do you much good if you can't leave the dock.
Haha
Ooof
So true!
🤭
missles can be shor from drydock, but planes cannot be started without working catapult and here we got a winner XD
Heavily armed Russian cruiser Moskva apparently not heavily armed enough to avoid being destroyed by a country with no navy.
Or maybe because of that "heavily armed" that makes the ship exploded. Imagine what happened if the missile hit the missile tube on the side of Moskva
@@thongdinhngo8337
Yeah, basically. It is analogous to the obsession the British had with battlecruisers in WW1. Lightly armored, fast and packed as much punch as battleships. But if they got hit, boom. That is why despite significant advantages, the British took 2.5:1 losses at Jutland.
@@RTWPimpmachine Right. NATO ships have less armed as a trade off for better protection and ammunition concealment. Packing a lot of ammunition without place to store make it become a floating bomb itself
Apparently that's disinformation that Ukrainian Elensky claimed. You can't believe a word coming out of that comedian's mouth.
@@thongdinhngo8337 Apparently so. Those cruise missiles were never meant to take out a warship the size of the Moskva so it was the secondary explosions that did the bulk of the damage. What it says also is that amphibious operations against the Odessa area are probably out of the question as Russian ships are apparently sitting ducks for land based anti-ship missiles.
Soviet Navy: Nothing will defeat us
Pepsi : has entered the game.......
Probably lost on most of the idiot gamer kids commenting.
I laughed more then I should’ve
lol, how pepsi is involved?
@@Querens In the late 1980s, Russia's initial agreement to serve Pepsi in their country was about to expire, but this time, their vodka wasn't going to be enough to cover the cost.
So, the Russians did what any country would do in desperate times: They traded Pepsi a fleet of subs and boats for a whole lot of soda. The new agreement included 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer.
@@collguyjoe99 lol, I didn't know anything like that. Will try to find some info about it. Obviously they wouldn't put anything like that on air. Well, in the late 80-s USSR was already colapsing due to its born dead economy so I'm not surprised.
Russian Engineers: How many weapons you want on this thing?
Russian Admiral: YES!
There's always someone just copy/pasting other joke formats for attention
It's actually how it works. No matter what alien technology you have you can't fulfill requirements of the army/navy. They always want more.
@@РайанКупер-э4о maybe not make ship out of aluminum foil.
Putin "See that carrier fleet?"
Admiral "Da"
Putin "I don't want to
*Kirov reporting*
Mfw the red alert 3 soviet ship is realistic
Red Alert 3 Dreadnaughts are the real life rusian cruisers but with better design.
When they get to build the 60th+ one that works well it may be worth discussing. Until then - just note that the two navies aren't closely comparable. One is likely sufficient for defense deterrent, the other is capable of changing global policy by the mere idea that they might show up.
russia's geography doesnt exactly require their navy to field a blue water navy to be effective though. most of its conflicts are fought with its land neighbors. most of its strategic assets and complexes are located deep inland. even the cities that are situated on the coast are located within gulfs/bays/other highly strategic geographic regions which allow them to apply their bastion doctrine effectively. russia will not fight the us navy in the middle of pacific like the japanese. hence i dont really see how the us navy can overwhelm the russian navy in a war. though in a conventional war, the us air force will still completely inundate the russian defenses
wait till star fleet
@@eduarddv00 Exactly, it's a difference in naval doctrine and need.
I once saw the Admiral Pantaleyev IRL and was astounded by the how aggressive it looked compared to the frigates my country uses. 2 main guns, huge missile tubes and circular ASW rocket launchers all of which were clearly visible from 2 miles out. Made me think about this very topic
If looking aggressive matters they would use artists to design weapons. :)
Bark is worse than it's bite.
@@threethrushes its bite is thor missile system, so no its bite is a lot worse
@@threethrushes
The bark is enough to scare off the whelps.
The US has a completely different set of capabilities when it comes to its navy.
US ships has COD inventory, while Russian has GTA inventory.
The issue is that a US ship will never go into battle against an enemy navy alone. The US doctrine still mostly focuses on fleets of ships (occasionally, a US ship will sail alone, but that's the exception,rather than the rule)
Unless your ship is a submarine. :-p
Then solitary is the rule. Run Silent, Run Deep, Run Alone... Destroy the threat, leave behind a Kilroy was here sign.
@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight that's what Russia used to specialised.
Fun fact about VLS: A lot of ports will NOT allow boats to dock if they have VLS. I think this has something to do with their ease in striking land targets.
I was stationed on the Jefferson City, USS 759.
It was a submarine with VLS; we basically couldn't visit any foreign port because of this.
The Kirov battlecruiser is a true masterpiece. What a beautiful ship...
Yep the only missile cruiser that can carry nuclear warheads
That ship is the yamato of 2021
**Obama giving medal to Obama meme**
@@car_rar exactly my thoughts :D
The only problem is that kirov is a big target imo
Russia ships are more heavily armed because there are fewer of them and they don't operate in tasks forces together.
because Russia isnt sea driven civilisation / country, but quiet vise versa.
@@RedboRF They don't really have a good port 24/7 365 days, most of their ports freeze during winter. Besides the port in Ukraine.
@@reee_4067 exactely, not much of warm ports aside of those in Murmans and on the Pacific coast. Russia is continental Empire and USA is blue seas / oceanic Empire.
🤔 No I think I will still bet on the U.S. 🇺🇸with all the Ohio and sea wolf class submarine plus not to mention we have air superiority!
@@mr.smiley4263 >we have air superiority!
S-300, S-400 and S-500. PANTSIR, TOR, Kashtan CIWS. not to mention that Russia's sub fleet is undoubtebly superior by all means.
underestimating your competitor is the first thing to lose
Ah yes, it feels like this:
*Adds Katyusha to a ship
📈Navy
Ivan paid for the entire deck, Ivan uses the entire deck damn it.
USA: Battleship got missiles.
In Putin's Russia: Missles got battleship.
IF the ship is still operational, IF the missile actually works, IF the ship can get to open waters to pursue the US ship...
@@robc4191 They dont chase tho, US come not the other way around, they operate wherever while russians just guard their own, says enough.
@@AndreiTsiolis yes. It says putin hasnt made enought money off ransomeware attacks on US and European businesses to put coal in his boats yet.
@@robc4191 How old are you? Twelve? If you are over 12 then, judging by your comments, your IQ is twelve!
@@jerromedrakejr9332 He's not wrong, Putin isn't the great man like the internet thinks, he's an brutal dictator. Not even near democratic. You would have known this if you had seen the Russian protests. Literally allows himself to be bribed by Russian billionaires. People in the internet only support him because of his crazy photographs.
Designer: what weapons should we put on our ships
The Russians: It’s not what kind but how many
correction, large capital class ships died out because of CVs, not missiles.
@William Hendrix missiles had nothing to do with it, projection of airpower was the sole reason, a squadron of naval aircraft cost a fraction of the resources necessary to build a battleship, while the CV itself never directly engaged an enemy vessel while a BB had to directly do exactly that. the maturation of military aircraft is the single biggest change to modern warfare, and this was realized during WW2.
Hmmmm i agree with u but what william said also true anyway. It's both the cv and missiles that end the bb's career. Yes, cv's deterrent power comes from their attack aircrafts. However their aircraft's qualities are determined by their avionics &.. air to surface missile technologies. The same goes w/ surface to surface missiles, especially when attack aircraft weren't available or air strike mission weren't possible on the area due to several reason, such as a heavily defended anti air area, thus surface to surface missile is most reliable & viable method for the situation.
@@thunderboltcougar5626 dude you are talking about modern tech, battleships died out long before that during an era when things like guided missiles were in their infancy and actually posed little threat if any at all, massed formations of aircraft swarming a massive target like a battleships , armed with bombs designed to pen deck armor is what ended the era of battleships, missiles don't come into it at all.
On ww2
All those armaments didn’t save the Moskva.
neither did they save the ukron*zi navy, LOL
I’ve been wondering this for a while
I've always assumed because it was because the Russian Navy is trying to do more with less.
I've wondered it my entire life. But Covert Cabal answered what I imagined to be: difference in doctrine.
@@joeclaridy modern warfare. Less cost with heavy bang
America was the first with VLS, IFF, CIWS and a system like Aegis. Russia used the outgun approach as a counter. Unfortunately today, the world has caught up. Russia has the same tech today while keeping the outgun philosophy. Simply put, yes it is a difference in doctrine but now Russia has the same tech on top of it and China is not far behind.
@@rl8571 Russia military hardware are 80% cheaper than the US
The reason is simple: the USSR didn't operate the fleet aircraft carriers the US did.
So ultimately the offensive capabilities of each Soviet ship made up for the lack of aircraft strike capabilities. Also, they weren't intended for the same missions. The US Navy was crafted around a wartime mission of ensuring continued and unobstructed use of the SLOC from CONUS to Europe, ensuring logistical supply and military reinforcement would be available during a land war in Europe against the USSR.
The mission of the USSR, on the other hand, was to delay/ degrade the resupply and reinforcement of NATO from CONUS allowing a soviet victory in the land war. The modern Russian Navy has inherited that design strategy even if it's not as applicable to their mission now as it had been then.
Also, the fundamental peace time mission of every Navy is power projection, and without a true aircraft carrier of their own the Russians use their surface combatants as a substitute.
That's what I was thinking. Modern naval warfare revolves around carriers and aircraft. Russia is compensating for their lack of aircraft/carriers with more heavily armed destroyers/cruisers.
Also, Russia has no great need to keep sea lanes open. Most of their would -be enemies are on their own borders, thus a shorter supply line and very dense anti-aircraft defense to support that. The US has many overseas responsibilities- inherited from being the only power left undamaged by WW2 (the US did not seek world dominance - it was thrust upon America thereby). The commercial economy of US allies relies on American protection and that requires a huge navy.
If the countries that rely on American protection would help pay for the US navy, then perhaps Americans could enjoy the same social benefits that many Europeans and others do, like decent socialized medical care, and that nice shortened work week.
Soon as I heard Kirov Class, "Kirov Reporting" ;')
we are so old...
I still play RA 3. I played it today even.
....Allies: "Aegis Reporting!"
@@someguy5035 RA2 was the real deal, how old are you 14? RA3 is garbage
@@doodskie999 Cool projection. Your kind always tells on themselves.
Did they ever think that stuffing all the weapons you can in a ship greatly increases the risk of getting ammo racked? They must be quite confident in their defenses and armor if that's the case.
Japanese cruisers did the same thing, only to blow up catastrophically after being hit with 5in shells that on paper weren't a threat to their armor - because of all the explosive things they had on their decks.
Well, the Russians use their navy with the idea that they will be fighting in the home front, meaning that any US Carrier Group would be outmatched in missiles, guns and aircraft. And they would be outmatched because its easier to mobilize 200 aircrafts from several airfields nearby than carry and operate all across the ocean. And then you add all the SAM batteries that they can muster near the border, all the ballistic missiles, submarines and etc. So it makes sense to pack everything there because even a big barrage of missiles have way more chance to be fully intercepted by Russian Navy then the other way around just because the sheer amount of missiles, radars and air defenses. And they are bound to lose ships in these kinds of situations anyway. It would take a single cruise missile to sink any ship on both sides anyway (and that includes US carriers *because* they carry a ungodly amount of fuel, missiles and flamable stuff all packed together, so one good hit and everything goes up in flames by secondary explosions and even if it doesnt sink, it will just become a giant ball of flame and we've seen the amount of damage that a electric fire alone can do on a ship, much less secondary explosions).
@@Melanrick but us got the biggest Air Force and number 2 is the us navy. So us can send planes from literally everyone they control air and sea.
@@mzach2828 But those airplanes would have to function in enemy's airspace. Not only that, but if manpads are doing that kind of damage in Russian airplanes, those S-400, S-500 will do the same to US planes. Couple that with all the other batteries, plus the AA from the ships, combined with air power, a aircraft carrier wing would have massive problems. Then there is the risk of losing those ships, etc. Air power alone doesn't win ears though. Afghanistan is a example of that.
@@Melanrick yea but us got the most air power and the most sea power. So please tell me how russia would actually defeat the US I don’t think Russians really believe they can beat the us in a war as of yet.
"you see Ivan, if we put shit tonnes of weapon in our ships, we wouldn't miss the target! Right?"
"Da Boris, let's do the same thing with helicopters, tanks and Fighter jets."
1v1 battles are fun for thought experiments, but, in war time, you won't find an arleigh Burke operating alone.
Basically tiger vs lion, except a lion is never alone.
Plus the f-35b, also the vast amount of attack subs with stealth missiles
@@conductingintomfoolery9163right USA stealth Nuclear Subs are the most potent weapons on the seas!
@@Evertruth28 not just sea but ever
Nor you will find Russian warships alone. They will definitely move in group to increase the probability their ASMs salvos will saturate Carrier strike group defenses and reach the carrier.
Sovjet doctrine was to overwelm nato ships airdefenses. So they could take out de US aircraft carriers. Many russian ships are sovjet design
True
They are broke, end of story.
@@baskapat5239 America is broke-ier.26 trilion in debt
@@gumelini1 guess who has a flag on a moon and who didn't
@@baskapat5239 what good does it do for us?And from what I know our Atlas V uses their engines,and also Russia takes our astronauts to the space station and back.Beacause our Challenger and Columbia went kaboom.We have nothing to brag about,even our grand grand children will be paying of our debt.Everything we have is borrowed!Not that great if you ask me.That flag on the moon is not making us any money.While Russia on the other hand has no debt whatsoever.We are not that great as Hollywood depicts us.We are a joke at this point
The Ukrainians may have just proved you might want to hold up on putting your money on the Russians. Maybe a bunch of smaller ships instead of one bigger ship is better in this day and age.
The answer is the "mission" of each navy. This is similar to Germany's High Seas Fleet and Britain's Grand Fleet. One navy is designed primarily for coastal defense. Or at least battles in relative proximity to the mainland. The other is designed for Blue-Water missions. The navy for the Blue Water mission has to take more space for logistical necessities. And take into greater account crew comfort. And also leave room for maintenance. Since being out on the sea more often creates different maintenance requirements in multiple locations. While coastal navies can do without any of that.
The Russian navy uses ship large anti-ship missiles with high speed, long range and, large warheads because they do not have an aircraft carrier force to project power over the horizon or, protect their fleet from enemy aircraft carrier being within the long range enemy missiles!
Russian navy is a defense navy. It uses ASCMs that are guided by airborne heavy platforms that spot targets hundreds of miles away and guides missiles towards them. Those platforms are protected by shore-based fighters such as Flankers and Foxhounds. Russian navy also uses heavy missile carrying bombers to attack carrier battle groups. There is no need to spend tens of billions on aircraft carrier when it can be sunk with high probability by a hypersonic missile or ballistic missile. The latter is now available to Russia as it was available for China: medium-range anti-ship ballistic missile with several warheads that'll attack at hypersonic speeds. Given terminal stage maneuvering, they will kill the whole group even without nuclear charge. 3-4 ASMRBM per group, and it's WAY cheaper solution than own aircraft carrier that Russia has no idea what to do with.
@@Max_Da_G it’s not that we don’t know what to do with them, it’s more that there are some pretty big flaws yet and we’d rather buff out the kinks before committing to building more
lots of missiles and guns: *tightly packed onto a ship*
AP shells: Hey wanna recreate May 24 1941 HMS Hood?
That wad stoopid
Good Idea, Let Us Go Fellow Shikikan _scoots away_
Yeah lets welcome daring enemy ship by barrage of P-700 Granit missiles with 400km+ range designed to sink aircraft carrier by one hit..
Good luck getting your gun in range.
Also I'll just point out, modern ammunition storage systems for ships have come a long way since Hood. So even if we say a missile hits it's of limited use in that regard.
@@Kav. My point in making that comment was that if one of those weapons *does* blow up, it's likely to take the rest of the ship with it
Turns out packing so much firepower onto a ship is not such a great idea as the crew of Moskva at the bottom of the Black Sea found out.
Or rather, packing so much ammunition and missile on deck turn the ship into floating bomb
@@thongdinhngo8337 tell me
Because every different ship and weapons system in the United States may support a different congressperson’s district. Spreading things out also maximizes the number of elected officials who can bring good news to their district’s business leaders.
Wow, great to see you here, I didn't know you liked military stuff Tay.
After midnight silently judging comments and stumble upon @TayZonday on a random suggested video. I was 14 when chocolate rain came out. Loved it then, love it now
*in an event of war*
"Ivan you see those floating western airfields?"
"Da tovarisch!"
"I don't want to blyat."
"Davai tovarisch Kiril."
*launches +100 missiles*
they just build more and a case against you
Who says the Russians won't do the same? Besides their stuff is cheaper and isn't manopalized unlike a sertain western nation
@@sovietred7371 you get what you pay for.
You just gave them 100 more reasons to destroy you lol
@@danielhawkins2848 doesn't work that way if it is manopalized
The US is more geared towards their carriers. Thats why the other US ships are not heavily armed.
Well, they travel with several escorts. Mess with a Navy ship and you may find that you’ll get far more than the bull’s horns or the russian bear’s grumbling tumbling growls and growns. And russian bears must not have as good a smeller as America’s bears cause we can sniff your ships out much farther away than you can ours.
@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight Russian ships tend to operate in smaller fleets or even solo. They also heavily rely beyond visual range engagements with missile based armament. They also want to overwhelm point defense guns with an many incoming weapons as possible. Once that Russian ship squeezes off that first missile it’s lifespan is limited by how many more it can throw at other ships and how fast it can throw them before it starts to eat return fire
@@matthewcaughey8898 The flaw with your claim is that "beyond visual range" crap. That is OUR term. We ARE capable of such actions. The Russians have severe myopia. Nice try though.
@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight aren’t the Kirov and the Oscar both packing the shipwreck cruise missile with its 750 NM range?
@@matthewcaughey8898 The missile range and the eyes that guide it are two different things.
4:34
I WAS THERE FOR THAT, CG 54 Antietam its the cruiser closest to the camera. I have pictures from the stern. One of the only times they let the crew out on the weather decks during Photo Ops
Make love, not war, be prepared for both.
@Antun Šturlić you can't fighting while fucking
So both country should exchange hookers?
@Antun Šturlić AH AH AH AH !
8:13 I’m sorry but that is just too badass!
The rail missiles do look awesome, but they are outdated.
US ships use to have them, even the early Ticonderoga cruisers had them. All replaced with VLS which can fire a lot faster and other reasons he mentions
Plot twist : Russian ships actually use land mine on the deck to protect the ship from infantry attack
..... And kamikaze pilots;)
🤣😂🤣 thats funny
This video aged well 😂😂
“Quantity has a quality all its own.”
Especially when quantity is made up of quality, cz only a trully ignorant person would call russian guided missiles low quality.
@@KondorDCS they are the best
Yeah that would be true when talking about the US and it reliance on the tomahawk and saturation attack strategy, a relatively unimpressive subsonic cruise missile, but the yanks don't have anything better besides projects and pipe dreams.
@@myopicthunder Russians are very well known for mass attack doctrine. They don't even bother with similar systems like aegis defense systems as its waste of $ in their eyes. So saturating area with dumb bombs is the way to go. They even had manuals which indicated how many artillery shells you have to land in 1 sq/km to kill/disable 60-65% of entrenched defending force. If i recall correctly it was something near 26 000 shells.
Subsonic missiles have negatives as well as positives. Just because missile is fast doesn't mean its automatically better.
Technology wise west is superior, but it lacks in quantity. Russia where life is cheap, mass produced average solutions is usually the way to go. Or as russians would say. Net analog v mire.
@@karma7683 hilarious, the US navy can't defend itself against P700s and P800s from the 70s ntm hypersonic missiles. You're also convulating Soviet with Russian and WW2 artillery with modern naval warfare.
Because it’s *russian* what you’d expect
Some soviet era shit which IG is what we saw.
6 Russians to equal one American lol
@@funnyacres5078 yeah right....
No
@@funnyacres5078 what a child
"Why are Russian ships more heavily armed"
Zumwalt: "Ima ahead out"
Edit: the two ships are built around two different types of mindsets from two different countries the zumwalt is made to protect aircraft carriers the Russian ships are made to kill aircraft carriers
Large as a cruiser, armament of a destroyer (worse since there is basically no ammo for their guns), the crew of a frigate. It just doesn't make sense to my inexperienced, untrained, shipbuilding logic.
You mean the 'too expensive to build' and 'too easily negated stealth' Zumwalt that got scrapped after 3 ships.
The Zumwalt doesnt have any ammo cause of the cost
Zumwalts new gun doesn't even work
Zumwalt was an over-engineered, expensive, incomplete failure. No comparison.
1 year later and the Slava class cruiser is sunk by just 2 subsonic missiles. Do Not bet bet on Russia
I love how you answer the actual question, unlike so many other people and making videos about what if this or what if that or who would win, and at the end they say let me know what you think.... Like wtf...?
Probably because Putin does what he wants. He doesn’t have to go thru Congress
And that’s a good thing
You can really notice that with the space shuttle. Wtf did they want that thing to do???
@Bro Momento eeeeeh, idk, it didn't work out with videogames, since the politicians aren't biased at all, it didn't work out with military projects, since they always go overbudget, it didn't work with NASA, since they always go overbudget (SLS, Space Shuttle, etc.)... i really don't know
Another big factor to consider is that the Russian Federation just has fewer ships. If you have fewer, and losing a single ship can be a major blow to your force projection ability, and defensive capacity, you better make sure those few ships can practically win a war at sea all on their own. That, and as opposed to the US forces, they don't have as many massive carriers that they need to defend, and don't use large scale fleet tactics often. When you have more ships, those ships can work cooperatively t put out more firepower with less weapons. And if each ship has less weapons, they can pack more ammo for those few weapons for a much longer engagement period. Where the US use a force through numbers approach the RF have always been more about *breakthrough* vehicles that can take the hits and dish them right back out. Except in their airforce, they only really started to take an interest in multi-role aircraft around the Cold War era. Eventually their naval forces may grow to reflect this, but of course, making more carriers and more advanced carriers takes a lot of time and money, which they rarely have enough of.
I mean I’m just guessing. But if you think about ww2 when there were actually ship battles. The catastrophic damage was taken when the gun battery was hit. A simple 1,000 lb bomb didn’t do much damage. Now when it hit the 100 -500lb explosive shells then the whole ship went bye bye.
Well I mean.... the ticonderoga is smaller and can carry more missiles and has one more canon than the slava class. Without even mentioning ESSM; but an arleigh burke, if the front VLS is all ESSM, can carry 192 missiles. Which is a lot of missile while still leaving 48 tubes for other stuff like tomahawk, SM2/3/6, Anti-ship. Additionally the CRAM is a significantly better CIWS than the gun based ones as it has longer range and is fire and forget meaning it can rapidly engage more targets.
If you think about it, one of the reasons the AEGIS system is designed with so many missiles of dedicated anti-air capability is to make sure that if a Russian ship fires its anti-ship missiles at them, there is enough ammo to ensure none of them get through. Of course it is useful against aircraft too, but usually it's the US that has the air superiority at any given time, especially if a carrier group is nearby.
Plus it's standard USN doctrine to fire at least 2 missiles per target, to ensure a successful kill. So it's important they have plentiful anti-air missiles as effectively you can target at most half the number of your missiles.
For some reason LRASM is one of my all time favorite missiles. I guess because it's basically a automated drone put in a missile body.
Word has it that the Russians also have a much higher alcohol store onboard.
They have tanks for freshwater, diesel, and vodka.
More Vodka than missiles for sure.
@@la7dfa The Yassen class sub sailors might argue with that. Never argue with a drunk sailor. lol
@@la7dfa do you have any idea i have a vip tour with the philippine pressident and defence secretary of our country inside 2 ships the kilo class submarine and the corvete ship dock in our naval base in clark now we saw vodka but they seems not addicted and they like filipino drinks than vodka but they control alcohol for they are ready for atack
When I served on a USN cruiser in the 1980s, the Combat Systems Officer was fond of saying, Our principal weapons systems is the F-16. Meaning the fighter jets from the carrier 50 or more miles away would be vectored by us to attack the enemy. Surface ships work with the carrier aircraft (and other aircraft, if available). It is not expected they will be out on their own in ship-to-ship duels.
Also the video does not touch on the role of submarines. So far as the submarines are concerned, all those heavily-armed Russian (or Chinese) ships are just more targets.
Wouldn't that be an F-18?
@@joeblow9657 F-14's to defend the fleet, F/A-18's to attack.
On a Russian ship, every time you step onto the weather decks, you’d run into a weapon system, either gun or missile launcher. I like the Russian warships better.
0:23-RIM-8 Talos anti-aircraft missile
1:18-that's a Udaloy-class destroyer with its one 100mm gun mount and SS-N-14 Silex missiles removed. What's it armed with, now?
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Большие_противолодочные_корабли_проекта_1155#Оценка_проекта
"...A source in the main headquarters of the Navy told Izvestia that the 30-year-old BODs will be equipped with modern A-190 Universal cannons, Caliber, Zircon, Onyx and Uranus missiles.
- Thanks to this alteration, the BODs will actually become destroyers and will be able to destroy not only submarines, but also surface ships, aircraft, missiles and ground objects. That is, they will become universal warships, - explained the interlocutor of the publication.
According to him, the modernization of the BOD 1155, according to preliminary calculations, will cost 2 billion rubles for each ship, while the cost of building a new destroyer of a comparable level starts at 30 billion rubles.
The retired admiral Vladimir Zakharov explained to Izvestia that the modernization of the BOD 1155 will make it possible to obtain a ship that meets all the vital requirements of the fleet in a short time.
- The new destroyer of the far sea zone, which will be able to replace the Udaloy, will appear no earlier than 2020. New ships of such a displacement as the BOD 1155 are not even included in the project yet. And from modern ships, only Project 22350 frigates have such functions as it has. But they are almost two times smaller, so they are less autonomous - they cannot sail far from the base - and carry less weapons, - Zakharov explained."
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Большие_противолодочные_корабли_проекта_1155#Модернизация_БПК_«Маршал_Шапошников»
"Since February 11, 2016, the Marshal Shaposhnikov is undergoing modernization at the Dalzavod Ship Repair Center (Vladivostok).
...
Thus, as a result of the modernization, it is planned to install 8 Uranium anti-ship missiles and a Caliber complex with a 16-cell UVP on the ship.
On July 10, 2020, Marshal Shaposhnikov entered the Sea of Japan to conduct factory sea trials. On the ship, the outboard fittings and hull structures were repaired, new equipment was installed. More than 20% of the ship's superstructure were dismantled and re-manufactured. Trunk cable routes were partially replaced. The Kalibr-NK and Uranium strike missile systems have been installed, and a new artillery mount has been mounted. After checking the operation of the main power plant at sea, the ship will return to the Dalzavod pier. The return of the ship to the fleet was originally planned for the end of 2020 [5], but in fact it happened only at the end of April 2021.
As a result of the modernization, the following were installed:
Instead of the bow 100-mm artillery mount AK-100, there is a new 100-mm AU A-190-01 in stealth design.
Instead of the second AK-100 tower, there are two UVP 3S14 modules of the Kalibr-NK complex, 8 cells each (16 cells in total). UVP allows the use of anti-ship missiles 3M54, medium-range cruise missiles 3M14, anti-ship missiles "Onyx", anti-ship missiles 3K22 "Zircon" and PLUR 91RT.
Instead of two launchers of antisubmarine missiles "Rastrub" - two launchers 3S24 of the "Uran" complex, 4 containers for anti-ship missiles each.
On the top of the foremast, where the Project 1155 BOD has a low-flying target detection radar MR-350 "Podkat" (it was absent on Marshal Shaposhnikov), there is a general detection radar 5P-30N2 "Fregat-H2".
MSO for ship artillery MR-123-02 / 3 "Bagheera";
Electronic warfare complex TK-25-2;
Communication complex R-779-28."
@@basargaloran7998 will there be other classes of ships that will get similar updates and alterations?
@@kempmt1 ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Военно-морской_флот_Российской_Федерации#Модернизация
"Modernization.
It is planned to carry out a large-scale modernization:
TAVKR project 1143 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" (until 2020) [79] [80].
First of all, the insufficiently reliable boiler and turbine power plant will be replaced by a gas turbine power plant or a nuclear power plant.
The existing missile launchers 3M45 P-700 Granit will be dismantled. Consequently, it will be possible to increase the hangar up to 4500-5000 m² to accommodate an additional number of aircraft. The ship's air defense will be strengthened by replacing the 3K95 Dagger air defense system with a new system with 80-120 new generation medium-range anti-aircraft missiles. In combination with the new air defense system, 4-6 Pantsir-S1 air defense missile systems will be installed.
The ship's fleet will consist of 26 new MiG-29K fighters, plus the Navy has an intention to extend the service life of heavy carrier-based Su-33 fighters (20 aircraft [81]) for at least five years, [42] or even until 2025 [43], and also helicopters and a naval version of the fifth generation SU-57 fighters, which is currently being developed. It seems that 15-20 promising fighters will be built before the aircraft carrier is re-entered into the fleet, which will most likely take place in 2020 [82].
Two heavy nuclear missile cruisers of Project 1144 "Orlan": "Admiral Nakhimov" (repairs should be completed by 2021 [83] [84]), "Peter the Great" (under repair until 2020) [80] [85] [86] ... The cruisers Kirov and Admiral Lazarev are awaiting disposal [87] [88].
The main acquisition of the cruisers will be the UKSK, the newest universal shipborne firing systems. It will be possible to install missiles "Onyx", "Caliber" and, in the future, "Zircon" into the same launch containers, which will become the main weapon. In addition, air defense will be strengthened: the S-400 and new melee air defense systems. In total, taking into account anti-aircraft missiles, "Orlans" will carry more than 300 missiles of various types [89].
Submarines of project 949A "Antey", [90] with the possible completion of the laid hulls of this project [91].
The project will receive new information, navigation and communication systems, hydroacoustic equipment [92]. Striking power will also increase: the Caliber-PL complex will replace the outdated Granites [90].
All boats of projects 971 "Pike-B" and 877 "Halibut" for the missile system "Caliber-PL" [93].
Titanium boats of projects 945 "Barracuda" and 945A "Condor", after its completion, the boats will be similar in combat characteristics to the boats of project 885 [94].
The boats will receive new sonar stations, combat information and control systems, radars with an electronic reconnaissance station, and a navigation system based on GLONASS / GPS. In addition, the boats will change weapons systems and teach them to shoot cruise missiles from the "Caliber-PL" complex [94].
BOD project 1155.
The BOD will be equipped with modern A-192 cannons, Caliber missiles and the latest air defense and missile defense system with S-400 Redut missiles. Thanks to this alteration, the BODs will actually become destroyers and will be able to destroy not only submarines, but also surface ships, aircraft, missiles and ground objects. That is, they will become universal warships [95]. "
________________________________________
The modernization plan is big. I found a table on the Russian wiki, but there is no analogue on the English wiki. If I insert it here, it will blur. Try to upload the link to google translate.
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_кораблей_Военно-морского_флота_Российской_Федерации#Сводная_таблица_модернизированных_боевых_кораблей_ВМФ_России
The basic lesson of naval warfare was changed forever when the Japanese sunk the Repulse and Prince of Wales during WW2: Naval Aviation is superior to any surface ship, regardless of how well armed they are. The Russian Battlecruisers would stand no chance against a carrier strike group, which is what it would have to face from long range. Sure it would likely shoot down some planes and American missiles, but it could not survive a swarm. As soon as it gets hit once or twice, critical systems will start going down and it will be over. That is the reality of why Americans have different doctrine.
....and subs are better at killing ships than another ship...
And that is why Russian Battlecruisers still carry Nuclear Anti-ship missiles while the US Navy puts its faith on stealthy F-35s to get the job done.
In either case whomever is quicker to the draw will win.
It's the low count of CIWS and SEA-RAM that worries me.
Aye, but China is what they're adapting to, and they're more submersible based
Russia isnt a threat. Russia is gearing up eventually to be an ally soon. China the real threat rn.
@@honkhonk8009 well, they're running joint maneuvers atm and I wouldn't be surprised if they made a deal exchanging support for Russian claim to arctic for support for Chinese claim for... Well, everything south and east of China lol
The US is adding more to carriers now.
US Ticonderoga Class carries 122 VLCs typically 80 SM2 and at least 26 Tomahawks, while it is outgunned by the Kirov which is almost 3 times the displacement, it gives the Slava and others a run for the money. The Arleigh Burke carries 96 VLCs and therefore carries more "big missiles" than its direct Russian competitor. What Russian ships indeed do have is a much heavier CIWS starting from the small missile boat to the big Kirov class which has either 8 Phalanx type guns or 6 more sophisticated Kashtan hybrid gun missile systems. Most western ships have 2 tops Phalanx oder RIM type CIWS, US aircraft carriers carry some more but the brand new Queen Elisabeth class British carrier carries just 3 Phalanx and no other defense missiles.
those comparisons are relevant for blue water operations. If we have to project power onto a coastline, I don't see how a big, juicy target like a carrier will be able to fend off the very large amount of missiles which will be able to be fired from land. We need to diversify. Keep some of the carriers for blue water ops, but against coastlines vs. major industrial powers, drone carriers should be stealth ships or even stealth submarines.
Its crazy how these countries are capable of building high tech, deadly and super expensive ships, and not capable of helping the poor.
@lunthang hangsing thats why half a million americans are sleeping in the streets and btw your country keeps killing innocent people in middle east. dont even try to argue about it
Unfortunately, not any more.
@@leartz6241 homelles poverty peope in america have a car
@@1990-w1l you can get a car for 500 dollars buddy. everybody can own one if they WANT
@@leartz6241 in other county, if you poverty you cannot buy anything.
US: why so many weapons?
Russia:yes
Why are Russian ships more heavily armed compared to the US?
Short answer: Because, one, the Russians have few platforms out there and in order to make up for the numbers to be able to counter US Carrier Battle Groups (CBG) they needed those few platforms to be filled to the brim with weapons and, two, their doctrine was to leverage the success of their land based missiles that were huge, fast and scary.
Long answer: Three reasons (sorry if it seems I am promoting USN fleet dominance).
• Asymmetry
• Leverage
• Size
And then, that is just not true. They are not. Let me explain.
The Russian naval doctrine on offensive weapons, like much else, has traditionally focused on asymmetric weapon development because they cannot compete with the US budget. A missile costs less than a fighter and less than a ship. And if those missiles can destroy or mission kill their targets, then asymmetry worked (and it did for some time).
The heavy investment by Russia in the Iskander type missiles (9K720 Iskander - Wikipedia), also an asymmetric weapon that would have incapacitated NATOs superior air-power in case of a conflict in Europe during the post-cold war, made it a natural consideration to leverage that technology for a naval type missile, and so they where developed as well.
The incredible size of these missiles for naval use required ships designed around a launcher. That’s why the Slava type cruiser, that have a displacement close that of a US Burke destroyer (10 to 12 thousand tons), with only 16 of those seem to be so heavily armed. Russia has only 3 of these in active service.
Slava-class cruiser - Wikipedia
(aside: From a propaganda perspective these missiles where perfect. Their sheer size and seeming sophistication would scare the crap out of any ill-advised adversary or embolden any constituent or fanatic).
Then there are the Kirov battle-cruisers (Kirov-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia).
Of these behemoths there is only one in service. They are huge, 25 thousand tons of displacement, on account of being designed to carry 20 P-700 missiles (P-700 Granit - Wikipedia).
So just by looking at them, the Slava and Kirov, it seems evident they ARE heavily very armored compared to the US ships.
But that is not necessarily a strength.
The doctrine was that those ships would fire their complete salvo of missiles at a US carrier and trust they would be able to (i) find the carrier, (2) saturate the carrier’s defenses and (iii) trust they would succeed as they had no more missiles to fire.
But that offensive doctrine was and is greatly lacking because:
• Russia has 3 Slavas and 1 Kirov in operation. The proportion of 4 “heavily armored” looking ships hardly constitutes a characteristic of their navy.
• The only other ships with over 5,000 tons of displacement that Russia has are the Sovremennyy class that carrier only 8 “sunburn” missiles, of which they only have 5 in service.
• All the other 34 currently operating ships of the Russian Navy (3 Ad-Grigovorich, 4 Krivack, 12 Buyan, 6 Gepard, 7 Steregushchiy and 2 Gremyashchiy) are much lighter (see: List of equipment in the Russian Navy - Wikipedia) and do not have that menacing appearance.
But even if we look into the Kirov and Slava ships only, the fact is, that the “heavily armored” perception is, well, that, just an optical illusion. For two reasons.
Reason one: Those “old” ships and their big and fast missiles where never really a threat to US carriers, or their escorts, because those HUGE and FAST things cannot complete the kill-chain to hit a moving ship.
Here I write about that: If two Kirov Battlecruisers and three Slava class cruisers (all modernized) launched all their anti ship missiles at an American carrier task force from a range of 650-700 km would the American fleet take any casualties?
They will do worse today as the AEGIS system that was developed as a response to their threat is getting upgraded (AN/SPY-6 - Wikipedia). Also important to consider the US has 68 Burke destroyers in service. That is 17 times as many as the 4 “menacing looking” ships Russia currently operates).
Reason two: A US Burke has more firepower than any of those boats. In part because it has 96 mk41 VLS (Mark 41 Vertical Launching System - Wikipedia) that make up in numbers what the huge 20 missiles that a Kirov has or 8 of the Slava, but more importantly because it has the company of this more often than not.
And as part of a Carrier Battle Group, the Burkes have at least 70 fighters that can deliver ordnance on an enemy with blistering speed and huge depth.
How huge is that depth?
Those 20 Granit P-700 missiles weigh 7 tons each (and the war-head 750 kg of explosive). Each F-18 E/F on a carrier can carry just over those 7 tons in ordnance.
That means one flight of 50 planes can deliver 2.5 times the raw tonnage of the complete offensive salvo of the HUGE Kirov. And they can do it every 3-4 hours continuously.
Thanks for reading.
I liked every word of this
If you're army geek, i suggest you read this :D
List a war which Russia, or the USSR for that matter, initiated. Then google for "US history of military interventions". There you have the reason why the different doctrine. All Russia aims at, is defend itself. All the US has been doing, right from the start of its creation and up to today, is attack and invade other countries.
I always liked the designs of World War 2 Era Japanese Ships. Cold War Era Russian ships are my 2nd Favorite.
The reason is the same as with a lot of Russian construction philosophy, it is not the best let's just make it hit hard and cheap. It has worked with varied success throughout history
russian tech is build to last
@@tonimalum346 no its not at all lol. It’s cheap and easy. It’s not good compared to other forces.
You are watching Covert Caban and yet you didn't learn anything. Still regurgitating the stupid shit learned from Hollywood propaganda.
@@tonimalum346 if its tech being "build to last" doesnt make sense.
@@tonimalum346 No, it really isn't.
In terms of their ships, they catch fire and sink by themselves with alarming regularity.