Why hasn't China moved to the Soviet doctrine of carrier group killing super cruisers...

>lol no they're not.

YES they are you whateverpopcutureyougetthisshitfrom faggot

> fuck is your surface navy for
ether patrol or air defence or asw

>Just build subs
well yes this is exactly the solution many nations takes when faced possibility to fight superior navy

Because that doctrine was necessary due to having a much smaller number of potential vessels at sea, China seems to be building a more balanced fleet as opposed to the more rigid, defensive force the Soviet's would've employed.

Attached: Sovremenyy Ch.jpg (2000x1333, 1.73M)

China is just straight up copying the US right now as far as their navy is concerned. They're gonna come out with a STOVL fighter for their Wasp clones at some point.

Considering their shipbuilding capabilities they could probably manage it, they aren't like the Soviets with too few yards and insanely powerful submarine bureaus each pushing for seemingly for as many designs as possible.

>launch thirty planes
>each one is carrying 4 AShM
>fly several hundred nautical miles from Carrier Group to strike distant target
>blow your load
>muffled screams of CYKA BLYAT in the distance as CIWS shits itself
>fly back to carrier
>rearm and do it again
sounds pretty dope to me

>Why has America never built a USS Kirov to directly counter super cruisers?

The USN could afford to distribute their capability throughout their much larger, and much more serviceable fleet. The Soviet's could only have a fraction of the number of large vessels to sea at a given time, so they needed to make sure they had some classes that were very capable ship for ship. For this they built a series of high performance cruisers and destroyers, though the fleet was still composed mostly of much lighter frigates and destroyers.

Attached: Vasiliy Chapaev.jpg (1536x1936, 378K)

The Type 055 is suppossed to get the DF-17 anti-ship HGV or a derivate of that, so they are indeed going the soviet route in some sort.

They have the resources to do both USN and Soviet doctrines.

Attached: Lhasa.jpg (1200x800, 231K)

We invented airplanes and laser guided missiles. Thats why.

>subsonic RECON aircraft flying high and easily spotted, also spots enemy vessel, and enemy has no idea where the CBG is.
>36 superbugs launched with 4 AShMs each and split into two directions
>4 growlers a company the flight, 2 each pincer
>Fighters fly high, until they get close to enemy radar range, then drop to sea level
>Continue on till very close, launch sea skimming missiles
>RTB, while growlers continue on
>Last minute growlers pop up jamming like mad
>score dozens of hits with admittedly anemic warheads
>RTB rearm and do it again

seems a hell of a lot better than
>Enemy aircraft spotted 300 nmi out. There must be a CBG around.
>Scoot around hoping and praying to get a hit on radar
>Radar suddenly lights up like a Christmas tree and you cannot see a thing on it
>Mark 1 eyeball determines you're fucked from two directions
>Get raped by dozens of missile hits
>Never get to fire a shot
>Missiles in their tubes start exploding, sinking your ship
>At least our missiles are supersonic!!!

why not just make better air launched missiles? "the harpoon sucks" does not mean air launched missiles inherently suck, you can air launch brahmos

If China becomes a naval peer adversary then the cost effectiveness of surface combatants becomes a real concern. America gets away with "lol more burkes and carriers" because there is no peer opponent. Enter the USS Kirov.

>America gets away with "lol more burkes and carriers" because there is no peer opponent. Enter the USS Kirov.

That wouldn't make any sense, the reason the Kirov's were built was because the Soviet's couldn't compete with the USN in building carriers and they were unable to ensure a large number of large surface combatants could be kept at sea. The USN doesn't suffer from any of the problems that made building the Kirov's a good move.

Attached: Kirov.jpg (1876x1480, 386K)

but I want capital ships :(

That's kind of what the LRASM is meant to be. It's stealth and has a 1000 lb warhead, and can be carried by Hornets, Lancers, VLS, and externally on the F-35.

The Joint Strike Missile too, America's got quite a few stealth missiles entering service.

truly the BEST surface combatant on the planet right now

Because there is zero need for it.

Kirovs were designed to challenge shipping from NATO nations in the Atlantic.

China doesn't need them, because if the United States Navy is in range to launch carrier based aircraft against your, they are in range of land based aircraft to attack the carrier group.

A future challenge to USN carriers is going to come in the form of a massed volley of aircraft launched anti ship missiles, and the attack is going to be both about a billion dollars cheaper for the attacking nation, and more likely to succeed.

eggbasketing is a terrible idea, hence Russia not wanting to make any more of them

>cost effective
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Cost-effectiveness won't matter much when you lose a vessel and hundreds of men because the enemy has AEW and strike packages that can reach out hundreds of miles PLUS the range of their ordnance

>Kirovs were designed to challenge shipping from NATO nations in the Atlantic.
This is wrong, it was never supposed to stray far from the Barrents, and when it did it didn't for very long. The Soviet Navy's anti-shipping fleet would've been comprised of their second line diesel boats with limited support.

>A future challenge to USN carriers is going to come in the form of a massed volley of aircraft launched anti ship missiles
This is a threat that has existed since the 60's.

Because the aircraft have a kill chain and any chance of being successfully used, unlike missiles launched from sea level.

If you can't win an engagement then the next best thing is to lose as cheaply as possible.

>Why hasn't China moved to the Soviet doctrine of carrier group killing super cruisers?
Because they don't have the missiles for such a doctrine.
>Why has America never built a USS Kirov to directly counter super cruisers?
Because they have neither suitable missiles nor this fits into their doctrine.

No, they are not.

Attached: p-270 moskit & p-1000 vulkan.webm (1280x720, 2.7M)

>each one is carrying 4 AShM
Lol, you wish.
ib4 that one single photo from a literal test
No.

>fly back to carrier
>it's a smouldering pile of trash

Attached: Oscar-class-submarine-firing-SS-N-19.jpg (768x509, 51K)

>Magical scenario where americans think they will be fighting one ship without crew in the middle of the ocean

>Its another "why doesnt everyone have exactly the same doctrine despite having very different military and political goals"-episode

Attached: 1527957868903.jpg (1278x1181, 222K)

>Oscars sinking anything but themselves

Attached: 1489030914398.png (292x257, 142K)

>Americans having balls to attack Russian Navy
Didn't have then in 1971 and don't have then now.

No need to defeat a carrier that defeats itself by crane

The same goes for the rest of Russia, it collapses once every 80 years anyway, so no need to defeat it.

Nuclear arms treaty no longer has nukes on ships.

Attached: 61234512351235.jpg (454x344, 73K)

Elaborate please.

Please, RTFM before posting. Nuclear tipped AShMs are considered a tactical nuclear weapon and are not a subject to any treaty. FYI this is a really major source of butthurt in the US because Russia doesn't allow anyone anywhere near their tactical nukes.
He's either ignorant or a troll.

Attached: 3vb3 nuclear shell.jpg (604x340, 65K)

And yet you have no balls to do it.

I'm sure Jesus will guide those missiles to their target.

because

Attached: 2hrav4u4z3z21.jpg (3072x2044, 787K)

It doesnt matter what thinks.

A Tactical strike with a nuclear tipped ASM on NATO assets will most likely trigger a strategic response from NATO.

The oppurtunity cost of sinking One (1!) carrier and her escorts is not worth that kind of escalation. Russian Doctrine will only allow for nucealr strikes in the event that the state is threatened with total destruction.

Nuclear Weapons are a political tool and not a viable tactical weapon, even if they're small.

If you see nuclear-tipped P-1000 flying it's probably the end of civilization as we know it, because it means someone pushed Russia to launch them.
>A Tactical strike with a nuclear tipped ASM on NATO assets will most likely trigger a strategic response from NATO.
I wouldn't be so sure. This is literally the source of butthurt that I mentioned above: tactical nukes are a completely other thing than strategic ones and even if one side used them locally, both sides would really really hesitate to launch strategic nukes.
>Nuclear Weapons are a political tool and not a viable tactical weapon, even if they're small.
Well, I mean this is not the Cold War and nowadays humanity calmed down a bit, true, but specifically tactical nuces are very much a viable weapon. Every nuclear power would think 10 times before triggering a full strategic exchange because of one nuked aircraft carrier or an armoured division.

Attached: izdeliye 244 nuclear bomb.jpg (1024x678, 125K)

Not Jesus, engineers.

Attached: 2ffa65e5bcedf61c9b66b507a21305e6_fitted_800x3000.jpg (800x604, 99K)

>blow your load
How did you manage to do this without being shot down.

>CIWS shits itself
Its a subsonic missile highly visible in infrared and radar and has no terminal maneuvers, legacy CIWS can take it out until it runs out of ammo.

Kirovs are designed specifically to kill other military ships. You dont need a massive missile to take out a freaking cargo ship.

Because the navy is gonna get fucked from space next war and everyone knows it.

sure buddy. You are counting on Trump knowing the difference between tactical and strategical. Newsflash he doesn't. Expect the MIRV's to come flying.

That's what he has advisors for. If every retard could've just launch on their own, we'd have seen Nixon launching some. Also Yeltsin and Bush.

Sorry, we dont (unlike you) attack other states due to a massive inferiority complex.

Also, you, like us have nukes, so a war wouldnt end well for anyone, and we both know that. The USSR fell and abandoned communism because they realized that the western way of life was better.

That looks like an overly complex and vunerable system that could be jammed/put out of action relativly easy.

Also, wasnt those satelites non-functional for like 20 years when the USSR collapsed?

>we dont (unlike you) attack other states due to a massive inferiority complex.
I'm just going to assume that you're an american and laugh my fucking ass off. Sorry, but this is golden. Gonna bump this a couple times later if I remember. Wait, what was it?
>Sorry, we dont (unlike you) attack other states due to a massive inferiority complex.
Oh, right. Damn.

Attached: 14646043957380.png (428x510, 303K)

Attached: 1049601063.jpg (351x299, 18K)

I know we attack various states for shitty reasons, like the fact that our (((best ally))) want us to, but dont confuse this with the massive inferiority complex and butthurt you feel because Somalia has a lower percentage of AIDS cases then you, and Scandinavia has a better GDP (total and per capita) then you.

>P-1000
That's Vulkan. An upgrade of Bazalt. Do you mean Zircon?

I meant Vulkan. Zirkon is yet to be deployed and it will be a formidable missile, same as Kh-47M2 and Kh-32, but current Chad Thundercock list is: P-1000, P-700, P-500, Kh-22 and maybe to some extent P-270. The rest are simply not as relevant as supercarrier-killers, neither with warhead, nor with sheer kinetic energy.

Attached: 1164 varyag launch tubes (2).jpg (4752x3168, 3.62M)

I mean hes smarter than you so how would you know?

>Mark 1 eyeball determines you're fucked from two directions
>Magical scenario where americans think they will be fighting one ship without crew in the middle of the ocean
You are a complete moron. That or you somehow think that ships have eyeballs....

Now like the scenario stands guy, do you think the surface fleet spreads out and is destroyed one at a time, or groups up and is sunk all at once because they are all jammed at once? More ships does not help the surface fleet find the CBG, as they get picked off piecemeal by the agile much faster aircraft.

>Mark 1 eyeball
Not every country is Iraq.

Attached: tu-142 (4).jpg (1500x1013, 293K)

Reminder that even the Nakhimov falls short of the superior Renhai.

The Nakhimov will carry 80 UKSK-M for anti ship or land attack or anti submarine or anti ballistic targets (77N6-N1) which is lesser than the Renhai's 122 super large VLS bins.

The Nakhimov's 128 (64 + 64 VLS replacing 48 + 48 cylindrical VLS of the S-300F system) smaller sized VLS for anti air or anti surface missiles pales in comparison to the Renhai's super large 122 VLS bins.

Vulkan is only carried by 1 ship, the Pacific Fleet Slava flagship, and it doesn't have the networking thingamajiggery of the newer missiles. Plus it kinda looks less accurate compared to other missiles due to its waterline dive.

>Vulkan is only carried by 1 ship
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava-class_cruiser#Ships

Lol, and you have now completely abandoned surface ships alone in favor of aircraft for both detection and attack. You have literally proved

Attached: picard holding in a laugh.jpg (606x456, 51K)

How did a discussion about naval doctrines etc. get boiled down to 'balls'?

>abandoned surface ships
Sorry, some countries are not limited to 500-2000 km range on their maritime aircraft.

Attached: tu-142 line2.jpg (1200x790, 349K)

(((best ally))) is a weird way to spell your junkie thirst for 'muh full spectrum dominance' of the world economy

These threads where people circle jerk Russian big ships are non-sensical.

If you fire on a CBG with surface assets you give your direct vector for counter fire.
With bugs carrying Harpoons you double the engagement range, and double is assuming they don't use buddy tankers

The aircraft then drip fire 1 or 2 missiles as a time to keep the entire fleet in emergency stations under combat speed so they don hear the Sub captain laughing as he launches ADCAPs at each ship in the fleet.

Subs are the biggest threat to any fleet but need distractions to get reliably close
Surface vessels are the most effective way to picket around a carrier so a sub cant rumble it
The carrier is the king of force projection, but the sub is king of the sea

Until the mid 70's a sinlge battalion of tanks rolling through Fulda Would have triggered a full nuclear exchange, massive retaliation was the doctrines name for a reason, it was layered down to proportional response but considering a CSG is considered to be a US City by both thee DOD and State Department you can garuntee it *would* generate a limited strategic exhange at least.

Like I said the use of Nuclear Warheads does not provide a good oppertunity cost for *anyone* in this role, its a needless escaslation that provides no positive outcome.

USS Carl Vinson for St Petersberg or Volgograd is *not* a good trade, even if it doesn't provoke a general exchange.

Tactical Nuclear Weaopns are are Oxymoron.

>Until the mid 70's
I specifically said that the humanity is chill as of now. I know that in the early 80s the chance to trigger strategic nuclear exchange even with tactical nukes was high. Incomparably higher than now, in fact. But today is not the 80s.
>Tactical Nuclear Weaopns are are Oxymoron.
In a sense, because objectively there's no reason to use them in an ordinary conflict. That wasn't my point. My point was that today people on both sides would 10 times reconsider initiation a strategic nuclear exchange.

The United States decarled policy is that it would view a strike with Nuclear Weapons on a CSG as an attack on a population center. This would require the use of MIRVs on an enemy city.

There is no scenario where one doesn't follow the other. Especially when a conventional attack isn't actually that much less potant than the nuclear one. The political connetations of the mushroom cloud just doesn't let it happen

Yes I know that they have the policy. Consider that if Soviet sub crew followed the policy in 1961, we wouldn't've been speaking right now.
Policies is one thing, shit hitting the fan is another. People generally speaking don't want to end the world.

They want a navy capable of force projection, not just area denial.

>two missiles against an empty ferry is the same as against a crewed warship.

Dominating the worlds economy is great tho. Not for everyone else, but fuck the rest.

The only reason is the Soviets didn't have a meaningful numbers of large surface ships to justify a dedicated anti-surface platform.

Fortunately the great replacement will replace the ambitious *nglo with more docile races, I'm keen to see how white genocide softens US foreign policy.

And now you just went full What side are you even on? Are you some mad euro or a kike?

Legacy AShMs like Harpoon can perform terminal maneuvers far bette than something flying at higher speed and altitude, fucktard.

>Kid's first weapon test clip

Given that it's "Russia Stronk" propaganda, how likely is it that the ferry is packed full of gasoline or other flammable vapors to give the vatniks a better fireworks show?

We need to completely get rid of the Navy, from top to bottom. It's worthless and unnecessary. It does literally nothing that other people can't do 10x better. FUCK the Navy. I hope they just get cancelled.

>DEHHHHH I WANNA FLOAT ON *BOATS* MOMMY!

All the Slavas carry Bazalt. Only the Varyag was updated to carry Vulkan.

>it's "Russia Stronk" propaganda
It's an ordinary missile test. Get out of your CNN propaganda shell and understand that these missiles to exactly that on hit.

>it's normal to test missiles on civilian ships
I know things are bad for Russia, but are they so short on hulls that can float that they can't spare one as a target?

Their entire navy is basically an uncontrolled weapons test user

Attached: 4b657cf6042f90a876a7e9d4a6568c86.jpg (1024x768, 153K)

The saddest part is that you shitpost for free.

Attached: 3m70 p-1000 vulkan launch from 1164 moskva (1).jpg (800x536, 91K)

>The saddest part is that you shitpost for free.
Whats even more sad is that Russia is so fucking bad it needs to pay people to brag about it on the internet.

>Its a subsonic missile highly visible in infrared and radar and has no terminal maneuvers, legacy CIWS can take it out until it runs out of ammo.

I thought people believing this was just an anti-vatnik meme

has gun CIWS actually ever worked in a combat situation (accidentally shooting down a friendly A-6 doesn't count)? at least point defence missiles have actually shot down aircraft in combat

nobody seriously considers it a replacement for AA missiles. If subsonic AShMs have outsmarted multiple air defence missile systems from the one armed bandit era then what hope does a meme gun only meant to (at best) mop up what gets past the SA-N-20 have?

Attached: 1427754972547.jpg (816x816, 132K)

I'm on the clock, so technically I'm getting paid to shitpost. That's what happens when your country has a functional economy and doesn't need to pay people to help it cosplay as a real superpower.

>Why hasn't China moved to the Soviet doctrine of carrier group killing super cruisers?

Because Soviet cruisers are generally ASW vessels until Kirov came along and that was intended as a command ship not as some kind of carrier killer.

China uses A2AD with land based missiles to protect it's interests.

why are russian ships so fucking aesthetic?

WTF is up with all those mini cuck radars?

This is more or less true. Equivalent tonnage of frigate sized multirole vessels and a lot of auxilliaries can do the job of CVBG just as well nowadays... for lower price and more survivability.

>being skeptical of russia makes you a CNN librul drone

Such is the internet

Traditional shill playbook
If they accuse others of being the enemy, people will ignore them