The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[Ulmita]

Torpedo tubes and VLS are entirely different things.

Virgina Class VLS tubes




Each one of those doms is a Tomahawk. 7 per.




Those arrow shaped things on the front sied are Torpedo tubes.
[img]http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/brierdudley/10696.jpg[img]


Diagram



This is becoming shockingly stupid, even for you.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ohio/

22 tubes, with 7 tomahawks in each. What am i missing when he compared the 24 aegis shore cells with the total amount of tomahawks on the subs? Should he be comparing the 24 cells with the 22 missile tubes in the subs? Fast reload or not you need to be comparing apples with apples.

[Skroe]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ohio/

22 tubes, with 7 tomahawks in each. What am i missing when he compared the 24 aegis shore cells with the total amount of tomahawks on the subs? Should he be comparing the 24 cells with the 22 missile tubes in the subs? Fast reload or not you need to be comparing apples with apples.

What you're missing is that the VLS tubes on Aegis ships and Aegis ashore is Single Packed. They are physically smaller. In the picture above, the 7 pack is actually from an OHIO CLASS SSGN, not a Virgina Class (I misspoke). They are 7 packed because the original tubes were for SLBMs, which were far larger. Virgina's carry 12x single-tube Mark 41 VLS.


The point of failure is litterally your ability to use your eyes and count.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean here is a picture of a few guy loading one at a dock. One cell, one missile.



Here is an SM2 firing from it. Note the size.


Here is the system diagram.



And here is a Tomahawk coming out of one cell.



You'll note. One cell, one missile.

[Ulmita]

What you're missing is that the VLS tubes on Aegis ships and Aegis ashore is Single Packed. They are physically smaller. In the picture above, the 7 pack is actually from an OHIO CLASS SSGN, not a Virgina Class (I misspoke). They are 7 packed because the original tubes were for SLBMs, which were far larger. Virgina's carry 12x single-tube Mark 41 VLS.


The point of failure is litterally your ability to use your eyes and count.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean here is a picture of a few guy loading one at a dock. One cell, one missile.



Here is an SM2 firing from it. Note the size.


Here is the system diagram.



And here is a Tomahawk coming out of one cell.



You'll note. One cell, one missile.

I know all that and thats why i never said anything about the burke class ships. I touched the Ohio class subs because Kell compared different staff (in order to downplay the ashore Aegis installation in Romania?)

If he wanted to compare the total amount of tomahawks on the sub he should be comparing the 24 in the cell + whatever is in stock which my guess is that it would be way more than what the ohios are carrying.

Also, something else on the Aegis in Romania. The Mark-41 tubes can be loaded with a variety of missiles (as the link from the lockheed points out) and DOES NOT NEED ADDITIONAL GEAR as Kell said. So in reality each raw consists of 8 Mark-41 VLS and in the first raw you could have SM-2/3 in the second raw you could have tomahawks, in the thirst sea sparrow etc or just have mixed different missiles in each cell. Correct me if i am wrong but this is what i understood.

MK 41 VLS is the only launchingsystem that can simultaneously accommodatethe weapon control system andthe missiles of every warfighting missionarea—anti-aircraft, anti-surface, antisubmarineand land attack. The systemis designed to accept any missile intoany cell—a capability tha

Also that thing is modular and can be expanded to hold 100's of VLS tubes / cells in no - time. This is some scary installation in all honesty if you think about it.

Edit: If you think about it, that thing alone could wreck havoc in Russia if left unchecked and used offensively and Russians have EVERY reason to be worried. Sure the ships pose grave danger but Kell's logic is flawed. Its like saying: Since there is so much polution out there from cars etc what difference would make if i started smoking. Its flawed to the max.

[Blur4stuff]

maybe they should spend more money to boost their military. and then russia can spend more on theirs. and then...

[Marcellus1986]

Why won't Russia demand for guarantees that the submarine based missiles won't be used against it? Why do they get so autistic over this inferior version of the same deterrent(if you go by your conspiracy theory about it being used for launching tomahawks)?

It's Ulmita. You expect him to use logic and rational thought when replying to responses?

[Deleted]

maybe they should spend more money to boost their military. and then russia can spend more on theirs. and then...

It look like Putin is repeating USSR mistake.... arm the country to death. Russia is only about 140 million and still trying to keep up with about 800 million (US+EU)

- - - Updated - - -

Also that thing is modular and can be expanded to hold 100's of VLS tubes / cells in no - time.

Why? Do you consciously or unwillingly forget every time you do that argument that Tomahawks can be fired from a large truck, you do not need a fixed and vulnerable installation for that....

[Ulmita]

Why won't Russia demand for guarantees that the submarine based missiles won't be used against it? Why do they get so autistic over this inferior version of the same deterrent(if you go by your conspiracy theory about it being used for launching tomahawks)?

You should ask Kell to explain you why Russian's are going ballistic over that installation =)

[Deleted]

You are filled with a lot of hate for a people who hold no ill will towards you. You cannot accept the basic historical fact that the UK and United States are as close allies as any two peoples have been in the modern era. I don't know what is driving your animosity, but I'll bet it is a combination of envy and self-hatred. The saddest part is you've no reason to feel either. The British Empire has left a greater mark on the world than any nation before or since. If anything, the United States has only continued her work after she was no longer able. It's okay for us to be friends, I promise.

I am surprised that you don't get this because you seem smarter than the usual militarist crowd, but as should be perfectly obvious if you've ever read my contributions to British/Russian threads that I don't like people who kill kids under some pretext whatever their ethnicity.

There is a basic prohibition amongst all civilized people and even many primitive peoples against the taking of innocent or non-combatant life. It is unbelievably crass to put down opposition against such actions as being formed from the basis of petty nationalist tribalism. It is also just plain stupid from a purely military non-humanitarian perspective. You see this in the arab world all the time: every time a bomb blows up a wedding party a thousand new Jihadis are created. They simply can't be killed fast enough to keep up with the radicalization.

As for the British empire its action involved many unspeakable atrocities, man-made famines in India comparable to that of Mao or Stalin in particular. The dismantling of the empire was a blessing to the world.

[Deleted]

You should ask Kell to explain you why Russian's are going ballistic over that installation =)

Becuse it get harder to bully nations who can defend themself....

[Hammerfest]

After reading the headline, my first reaction was "Who in their right mind ever thought the British army was a match for Russia's in the last 60 years?"

[Deleted]

Wow, you don't know your history. Ever heard of "The battle of Britain"? Hitler DID try for a good while. He wanted to destroy the RaF and then he was going to invade Britain but because of a new invention "Radar" and the fact that the Brits wouldn't give up Hitler failed to destroy the RaF and infact suffered HEAVY casualties on his own Luftwaffe and called it off.

actually because Hitler got pissed the brits terror bombed berlin.
that's when they shifted to the blitz.
most military historians agree that if Hitler had remained calm and let the Luftwaffe degrade the RAF, Germany would have achieved its strategic goal of forcing the RN out of action and then crushed the British army.

[Gratlim]

But would the UK even hold up against France?

Currently? Nope
You can check numbers /arsenal.

[Deleted]

Currently? Nope
You can check numbers /arsenal.

The British army would be beaten by Poland.
its shit.

[caervek]

actually because Hitler got pissed the brits terror bombed berlin.
that's when they shifted to the blitz.
most military historians agree that if Hitler had remained calm and let the Luftwaffe degrade the RAF, Germany would have achieved its strategic goal of forcing the RN out of action and then crushed the British army.

This is partially correct, at the point that Hitler demanded Goering ignore military targets and switch to civilian targets, Churchill had already been briefed that due to the RAF pilots/planes being downed faster than they could be trained/built there were no reserves left and Germany would have air superiority over the UK within one week.

However even with air and naval supremacy, an invasion of the British isles would have been nigh on impossible. The allied forces were only able to invade Normandy because their intelligence agencies tricked the Germans into pooling their reinforcements in the wrong place. Had they mobilised them correctly the landing parties would have been crushed. Likewise a full scale invasion of mainland UK would have been simply un-achievable for Germany.

- - - Updated - - -

But would the UK even hold up against France?

In what way? The RAF has a distinct advantage over the French Air Force, so any air war would be a British victory, however both countries are pretty evenly matched otherwise, neither would really be able to successfully invade the other. Not that it matters because the rest of the EU would side against the aggressor and engage pwnage.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I am surprised that you don't get this because you seem smarter than the usual militarist crowd, but as should be perfectly obvious if you've ever read my contributions to British/Russian threads that I don't like people who kill kids under some pretext whatever their ethnicity.

There is a basic prohibition amongst all civilized people and even many primitive peoples against the taking of innocent or non-combatant life. It is unbelievably crass to put down opposition against such actions as being formed from the basis of petty nationalist tribalism. It is also just plain stupid from a purely military non-humanitarian perspective. You see this in the arab world all the time: every time a bomb blows up a wedding party a thousand new Jihadis are created. They simply can't be killed fast enough to keep up with the radicalization.

As for the British empire its action involved many unspeakable atrocities, man-made famines in India comparable to that of Mao or Stalin in particular. The dismantling of the empire was a blessing to the world.

Most people, even the "militarists" you've so much disdain for would not support killing of innocents for its own sake. Those of us who've actually seen war however know it is an ugly business, and that innocents will die whether you wished it or not. The reality my friend is that not all our enemies are Bond villains. They are not so cinematicly evil that we can kill them and walk away with a squeaky clean conscience. Sometimes your enemies are evil. Sometimes they are much like you and under different circumstances, would be your neighbor. You do not get to choose that by yourself however. Often, that normal person who'd you rather be at peace with has no interest in being at peace with you. When someone declares you their enemy and seeks to harm you, you don't get a vote in the matter. When that happens your good intentions and higher moral ground will not defend you. That work will be done by violent, crass men with rifles in their hands.

The choice to go to war should not be made lightly, but if it is made those deciding upon it should realize the cost of war is not in lives lost or money spent as though war is some kind of passive exercise. The real cost of war is in killing. How many people are you willing to kill to be successful? If the cost is higher than you're willing to pay, don't send good men to die for a war you had no interest in winning. Soldiers can't expect much from their people, but they can expect that their people do their part and carry the moral burden for what they send their armies to do. That sort of conviction has been lacking in the West of late.

[cubby]

The massive delusional arrogance of you people never fails to amaze me.

That was a quote from the movie A Fish Called Wanda. Lol, chill the fuck out.

Britain is protected by its waters. It is not easy to invade. The Germans failed to do so and abandoned attacks on Britain before the entry of the US into the war. The Russian navy has always been a joke, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Germany never attempted an invasion of England.

No one is relying on the US to protect them for the simple reason that Washington can't be trusted. The US gave a clear and explicit promise to help Ukraine in the event of an invasion in exchange for giving up its nukes, which it failed to honour for no other reason than cowardice. It would be the same if a NATO country were attacked.

This makes no sense. Are you off your meds?

[Kellhound]

I know all that and thats why i never said anything about the burke class ships. I touched the Ohio class subs because Kell compared different staff (in order to downplay the ashore Aegis installation in Romania?)

If he wanted to compare the total amount of tomahawks on the sub he should be comparing the 24 in the cell + whatever is in stock which my guess is that it would be way more than what the ohios are carrying.

Also, something else on the Aegis in Romania. The Mark-41 tubes can be loaded with a variety of missiles (as the link from the lockheed points out) and DOES NOT NEED ADDITIONAL GEAR as Kell said. So in reality each raw consists of 8 Mark-41 VLS and in the first raw you could have SM-2/3 in the second raw you could have tomahawks, in the thirst sea sparrow etc or just have mixed different missiles in each cell. Correct me if i am wrong but this is what i understood.



Also that thing is modular and can be expanded to hold 100's of VLS tubes / cells in no - time. This is some scary installation in all honesty if you think about it.

Edit: If you think about it, that thing alone could wreck havoc in Russia if left unchecked and used offensively and Russians have EVERY reason to be worried. Sure the ships pose grave danger but Kell's logic is flawed. Its like saying: Since there is so much polution out there from cars etc what difference would make if i started smoking. Its flawed to the max.

Its only different in your desire to make Aegis Ashore into the monster the Russian kool-aid you drank says it is. An Ohio can fire 154 TLAMs and then it must return to port and go through many hours of reloading. A Burke can fire 90-96 missiles, then it must return to port and go through many hours of reloading. The Aegis Ashore can fire 24 missiles and then must go through well over an hour of reloading IF all 3 modules are reloaded at the same time. Do you really think in a war that site will still be in existence after an hour? It isnt hardened. It also doesnt have the massive bunkers around it needed to support the "hundreds" of stand-by missiles you envision. It has a small magazine.

Yes, the Mk 41 can be loaded with a variety of missiles depending on the version of Mk 41 in question. From your own source: "MK 41 VLS is the only launching system that can simultaneously accommodate the weapon control system and the missiles of every warfighting mission area—anti-aircraft, anti-surface, antisubmarine and land attack." The system needs the proper weapon control system integrated into it. You CANNOT mix missiles in a cell! A cell holds ONE large missile or 4 ESSMs. 8 cells make up a module. You can mix AURs in a module.

It is not as simple as you want to make it sound to add modules after the fact. Yes they are modular, but they are not legos.

24 missiles will wreck havoc on Russia but hundreds of ship based ones will not? Its like saying smoking 9 packs a day is far healthier than smoking 10 packs.

Do you even know anything about Aegis Ashore that was not sourced from RT?

- - - Updated - - -

You should ask Kell to explain you why Russian's are going ballistic over that installation =)

It removes their ability to blackmail Europe with a small scale nuclear strike.

[Ulmita]

Its only different in your desire to make Aegis Ashore into the monster the Russian kool-aid you drank says it is. An Ohio can fire 154 TLAMs and then it must return to port and go through many hours of reloading. A Burke can fire 90-96 missiles, then it must return to port and go through many hours of reloading. The Aegis Ashore can fire 24 missiles and then must go through well over an hour of reloading IF all 3 modules are reloaded at the same time. Do you really think in a war that site will still be in existence after an hour? It isnt hardened. It also doesnt have the massive bunkers around it needed to support the "hundreds" of stand-by missiles you envision. It has a small magazine.

You really can't know how many missiles are stored there and what type.

Yes, the Mk 41 can be loaded with a variety of missiles depending on the version of Mk 41 in question. From your own source: "MK 41 VLS is the only launching system that can simultaneously accommodate the weapon control system and the missiles of every warfighting mission area—anti-aircraft, anti-surface, antisubmarine and land attack." The system needs the proper weapon control system integrated into it. You CANNOT mix missiles in a cell! A cell holds ONE large missile or 4 ESSMs. 8 cells make up a module. You can mix AURs in a module.

I think that thing in order to fire tomahawk just needs software nothing else if it isn't already there. My guess is the specific installation is ready to go for w/e mission is given. You would expect that especially seeing that is next door to Russia. Noone said mixing missiles in a cell. I said mixing missiles in the cells aka First cell SM-2, second Tomahawk, according to the article always.

It is not as simple as you want to make it sound to add modules after the fact. Yes they are modular, but they are not legos.

24 missiles will wreck havoc on Russia but hundreds of ship based ones will not? Its like saying smoking 9 packs a day is far healthier than smoking 10 packs.

Your ships will be way further if they ever fire. And how much you try to defend this you can't. Bahhh polution w/e lets start smoking, reasoning.

Do you even know anything about Aegis Ashore that was not sourced from RT?

I am linking non stop articles from lockheed and the official aegis ashore site and you ask this retarded question?
- - - Updated - - -

It removes their ability to blackmail Europe with a small scale nuclear strike.

Ok let me try to explain this to you once and for all so your brain might finally get it. Lets assume for a moment we believe the USA propaganda about the big bad Russia and how they want to conquer Europe or retaliate or w/e. Do you actually think the Aegis site would be a problem?
Step 1: Saturate the site with a bigger than 24 missiles volley. This can be done with kalibr-m from the ships in black sea and a regiment of Iskander-M. Easy gg.
Step 2: Launch the IRBMs with a couple of minutes difference so they have not time to respond.

And voila its as easy as that. Offensively that site posses no danger what so ever for Russia. However IT IS A HUGE HEADACHE if USA decides to use it in a first strike and thats where their problem is.

This should be simple to understand even for you.

[Deleted]

You really can't know how many missiles are stored there and what type.

I still ask you again why bother using a fix and vulnerable base, then there are better alternative to deploy ground launched Tomahawks...

[Deleted]

This is partially correct, at the point that Hitler demanded Goering ignore military targets and switch to civilian targets, Churchill had already been briefed that due to the RAF pilots/planes being downed faster than they could be trained/built there were no reserves left and Germany would have air superiority over the UK within one week.

However even with air and naval supremacy, an invasion of the British isles would have been nigh on impossible. The allied forces were only able to invade Normandy because their intelligence agencies tricked the Germans into pooling their reinforcements in the wrong place. Had they mobilised them correctly the landing parties would have been crushed. Likewise a full scale invasion of mainland UK would have been simply un-achievable for Germany.

Not really though - With air superiority, Germany could simply starve and wait out the UK.
It's army was far superior to the British one and at D-Day the allies did not have air superiority, so its not really a good comparison - At D-day the majority of the german divisions had already been degraded on the eastern flank.
The British ability defend from an invasion would have been weak, whats worse, without the British islands as staging points, the US intervention would essentially have been mooted for the rest of the war -