QuoteRussia plans reactivation of two Kirov-class cruisers
The Russian Federation Navy (RFN) is to reactivate two laid-up Kirov-class (Project 1144) battle cruisers, according to statements attributed by Russian media to the country's deputy defence minister.
Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin reportedly said that the Ministry of Defence has decided to renovate and modernise its heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser (tiazhyeliy atomniy raketniy kreiser/TARK) units Admiral Lazarev (ex- Frunze ) and Admiral Nakhimov (ex- Kalinin ).
The 24,300-ton ships were commissioned into the Soviet Navy in 1984 and 1988, the second and third vessels in a class that eventually numbered four. Col Gen Popovkin made no mention of the lead ship, Admiral Ushakov (ex- Kirov ), which entered service in 1980 and was decommissioned in 2004, appearing to confirm earlier reports that it is to be scrapped.
The RFN currently has one ship of the class in service, Pyotr Velikiy (ex- Yuri Andropov , ex- Kuibishev ), which was launched in St Petersburg in 1989 and commissioned in 1998.
I suggest we recommission the
Iowa and
Wisconsin in response.
And we'll decommission more of our navy!
To make you feel better Seedy, there are 6 Burke's under construction.
However, no new Tico's
Oh I'm sure that's money well spend.
Russia trying to become a naval power is a good thing. They will surely fail but its money away from the army whilst they're doing it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 06:39:14 PM
I suggest we recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin in response.
Screw them, lets do what the ruskis did in the '60s, build anti ship missiles.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tu.no%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00035%2Fnsm0701020900_jpg_35207d.jpg&hash=8b7667ee7b2c073aa1ce019a04075bb0227b7447)
Quote from: Viking on November 11, 2009, 08:29:20 PM
Screw them, lets do what the ruskis did in the '60s, build anti ship missiles.
Why the hell not, there's no more ABM Treaty.
ALCMs for everybody!
Quote from: Warspite on November 11, 2009, 06:52:28 PM
And we'll decommission more of our navy!
There's still time for you guys to cancel your two new carriers, too. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 06:39:14 PMI suggest we recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin in response.
This is probably less about measuring up to the US and more about being able to bully various ex-Soviet republics and Europeans with coastlines.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 06:39:14 PM
QuoteRussia plans reactivation of two Kirov-class cruisers
The Russian Federation Navy (RFN) is to reactivate two laid-up Kirov-class (Project 1144) battle cruisers, according to statements attributed by Russian media to the country's deputy defence minister.
Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin reportedly said that the Ministry of Defence has decided to renovate and modernise its heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser (tiazhyeliy atomniy raketniy kreiser/TARK) units Admiral Lazarev (ex- Frunze ) and Admiral Nakhimov (ex- Kalinin ).
The 24,300-ton ships were commissioned into the Soviet Navy in 1984 and 1988, the second and third vessels in a class that eventually numbered four. Col Gen Popovkin made no mention of the lead ship, Admiral Ushakov (ex- Kirov ), which entered service in 1980 and was decommissioned in 2004, appearing to confirm earlier reports that it is to be scrapped.
The RFN currently has one ship of the class in service, Pyotr Velikiy (ex- Yuri Andropov , ex- Kuibishev ), which was launched in St Petersburg in 1989 and commissioned in 1998.
I suggest we recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin in response.
We've got the
New Jersey sitting right in Camden; all they'd really need to do is unweld the gun ports. :contract:
Quote from: Jacob on November 11, 2009, 09:23:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 06:39:14 PMI suggest we recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin in response.
This is probably less about measuring up to the US and more about being able to bully various ex-Soviet republics and Europeans with coastlines.
Some of which are in NATO. And when it comes to dick-measuring contests, I want us to pull out enough to win.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 11, 2009, 09:24:21 PMWe've got the New Jersey sitting right in Camden; all they'd really need to do is unweld the gun ports. :contract:
That's a no-go, sailor. We need to maintain the
New Jersey where it is, as a strategic location for any future Bon Jovi concerts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 09:24:46 PMSome of which are in NATO. And when it comes to dick-measuring contests, I want us to pull out enough to win.
It warms my heart that when it comes to feckless Euros in Nato versus Russia, you're still on the side of the Euros :hug:
As for dick-measuring, isn't it better to put in rather than pull out? In any case, I'm just assuming the US wins... is it even an issue?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 06:39:14 PM
I suggest we recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin in response.
Is that a real response, given that the missile destroyers the US is building are several times more combat effective, and much less likely to suffer a critical reactor failure and sink?
Quote from: Neil on November 11, 2009, 09:32:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 06:39:14 PM
I suggest we recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin in response.
Is that a real response, given that the missile destroyers the US is building are several times more combat effective, and much less likely to suffer a critical reactor failure and sink?
Yes it is. Particularly since the BBs could be staffed with smaller crews with greater automation.
And, we still have outstanding Naval Gunfire Support issues.
The real solution is to build two entirely new dreadnoughts.
Quote from: Neil on November 11, 2009, 10:09:03 PM
The real solution is to build two entirely new dreadnoughts.
I could get with that, but with the state of project management in the defense industry the way it is, it'd still be cheaper to bring out the battlewagons than starting from scratch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 10:17:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 11, 2009, 10:09:03 PM
The real solution is to build two entirely new dreadnoughts.
I could get with that, but with the state of project management in the defense industry the way it is, it'd still be cheaper to bring out the battlewagons than starting from scratch.
Of course, but why cut corners?
It would stimulate the economy.
Cool. I used to sink the hell out of Kirovs on Red Storm Rising (C64)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 06:39:14 PM
QuoteRussia plans reactivation of two Kirov-class cruisers
The Russian Federation Navy (RFN) is to reactivate two laid-up Kirov-class (Project 1144) battle cruisers, according to statements attributed by Russian media to the country's deputy defence minister.
Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin reportedly said that the Ministry of Defence has decided to renovate and modernise its heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser (tiazhyeliy atomniy raketniy kreiser/TARK) units Admiral Lazarev (ex- Frunze ) and Admiral Nakhimov (ex- Kalinin ).
The 24,300-ton ships were commissioned into the Soviet Navy in 1984 and 1988, the second and third vessels in a class that eventually numbered four. Col Gen Popovkin made no mention of the lead ship, Admiral Ushakov (ex- Kirov ), which entered service in 1980 and was decommissioned in 2004, appearing to confirm earlier reports that it is to be scrapped.
The RFN currently has one ship of the class in service, Pyotr Velikiy (ex- Yuri Andropov , ex- Kuibishev ), which was launched in St Petersburg in 1989 and commissioned in 1998.
I suggest we recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin in response.
That's not fighting fair.
I say we give the Bear a fighting chance. Refloat the Exxon Valdez, stick on some 70s vintage radar and weapons system, and a miniaturized RBMK reactor.
Holland America Lines response:
http://nieuwamsterdam.hollandamerica.com/
Launch the new Nieuw Amsterdam! :w00t: :mmm: !!
Quote from: Jacob on November 11, 2009, 09:23:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2009, 06:39:14 PMI suggest we recommission the Iowa and Wisconsin in response.
This is probably less about measuring up to the US and more about being able to bully various ex-Soviet republics and Europeans with coastlines.
They didn't bully us back then, why would they be able to do so now? :huh:
Not to mention, getting close to a shore means no need for a navy to hit them :p It can then be done by land forces :)
V
Are they going to send the ships against Somali pirates?
Quote from: Habsburg on November 12, 2009, 12:37:57 AM
Holland America Lines response:
http://nieuwamsterdam.hollandamerica.com/
Launch the new Nieuw Amsterdam! :w00t: :mmm: !!
There is no form of ugliness quite so striking as that of a cruise ship's ugliness, is there?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 11, 2009, 09:24:21 PM
We've got the New Jersey sitting right in Camden; all they'd really need to do is unweld the gun ports. :contract:
I guess it's the only person or thing in Camden not adequately armed.
Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2009, 10:44:08 AM
I guess it's the only person or thing in Camden not adequately armed.
Whenever I'm on the bus to or from Philadelphia, we have to go briefly through Camden- once you cross the line from Gloucester City into Camden, it looks like the whole city was shelled by the
New Jersey.
I think it's funny that NATO does not have a contingency plan in case of a Russia's attack. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2009, 10:46:44 AM
I think it's funny that NATO does not have a contingency plan in case of a Russia's attack. :lol:
More big fun:
The POMCUS pre-positioned divisional equipment sets that the US kept in Germany are almost empty. :w00t:
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2009, 10:46:44 AM
I think it's funny that NATO does not have a contingency plan in case of a Russia's attack. :lol:
Nonsense of course it does.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2009, 11:17:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2009, 10:46:44 AM
I think it's funny that NATO does not have a contingency plan in case of a Russia's attack. :lol:
Nonsense of course it does.
Which is to sell Poland out.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2009, 10:50:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2009, 10:46:44 AM
I think it's funny that NATO does not have a contingency plan in case of a Russia's attack. :lol:
More big fun:
The POMCUS pre-positioned divisional equipment sets that the US kept in Germany are almost empty. :w00t:
They emptied out the stuff in norway for the second gulf war as well.
Why shouldn't they be empty?
The Euroes can defend themselves from the Russians, I am sure. They hardly need any help from us.