That is true, but maybe they cut it from production for time constraints and/or budget reasons and had actually destroyed the escorts, as well, before the USS John C. Stennis? I don't know? Good point, though.
I believe that the TU-22 can carry up to three Kitchen, or comparable, missiles? They only show two being fired from each Backfire. Maybe they had already engaged and destroyed the escorts and maybe the Russian fighters had already eliminated the CAP? I don't know? We'd have to ask. lol.
You think? Where are the escorts? If I remember correctly the have at least one aegis cruiser and several other ships. Why does a carriergroup enter the confines of the North Sea in the first place? CAP?
Krister Andersson I am sorry, but even with aegis cruisers or other dedicated air defence ships, soviets could still overwhelm their defences and counter-measures with sheer numbers of missiles lobbed at CBG.
a saturation attack is always going to overwhelm the best made defense system because its shear just numbers and defense systems don't have unlimited ammo.
+DowellForPASenate That's right, it's impossible to say how a real conflict could unfold. Remember before the Gulf War, even the US military was predicting as many as 10000 casualties and 100 aircraft shot down on the first night. Things rarely go as planned, for better or worse, in real war.
On 17 October 2000, two Russian aircraft, a Su-24 Fencer and a Su-27 Flanker, overflew Kitty Hawk at about 200 ft (61 m) of altitude. At the time, Kitty Hawk was in the midst of an underway replenishment in the northern Sea of Japan, between the island of Hokkaido and the Russian mainland. Following the overflight, the Russian pilots e-mailed pictures of their overflight to Kitty Hawk's web site. Russian aircraft also overflew Kitty Hawk on 12 October and 9 November.
I love the realism in this scene (god forbid this would ever happen) - i like how the Phalanx doesn't destroy every missile but it still did it's best. "They practically sank an aircraft carrier!"
3. Carriers ALWAYS have flight a CAP unless they're very close to shore. This deck had F-14's on the deck, so Phoenix missiles which have a 90 mile range at Mach 5 intercepting the bombers a long way out.
I love this scene, not because I hate the US or anything, but because it shows how a modern attack on an aircraft carrier is performed. Interceptors cannot stop the bombers before they launch from such distances, even patrols already in the air cannot reach them in time. The problem is not of the US equipment but because to intercept supersonic bomber run you have to be lucky, especially when they have the element of surprise like in this movie.
Yea those Backfires would never had gotten that close. The Hawkeyes would have picked them up time they hit the sky and tomcats and guided missile cruisers would have been all over them
Its just a movie remember in real life following a nuclear attack if a nuclear response hadn't taken place already, Defcon 1 all Carrier groups would be placed on High Alert, that carrier would have had at 6 destroyers with it 3 on either side and those Russian Jets would have been picked up by satellites as soon as they took off and the carrier notified. Then if the Russian Jets dont turn back the Destroyers armed with the Aegis defense system would have shot those jets down long before they entered firing range
Arturo Carter They don't need to get that close they stock either AS-16's or KH-22's both of which are more than sufficent to snap a potty aircraft carrier in two [combined with each planes compliment would be up too six with a stand off range between 300-600km] and lastly dont forget the MIGS and Sukhois...
Those carriers aren't out there alone and defenseless. If you know this info, what makes anyone think the U.S. Military don't know this also and don't have a counter?
I read the book quite a while ago. If I recall that particular sequence, the TU-22s laid down an overwhelming swarm of missiles that made it through the Aegis defense, CIWS wasn't able to get everything and a few missiles made it through and wreaked havoc on the carrier. I could be mistaken, there's a lot of that which is similar to the Iceland attack in Red Storm Rising.
This is utter nonsense. To place a carrier fleet near a powerful rival's home territory without constant air fighter support patrols/interdiction capabilities? This is also why there are multiple airborne radar platforms covering a whole fleet, that makes it virtually impossible for a small group of bombers to jam all at once. Airborne radar jamming from long range only tips off the fleet defense. Added to this all, fleet air defense is also commanded from these airborne platforms, such as E2-D Hawkeyes and AWACS E3-As (and more), and not just from the flag carrier's CDC (Combat Direction Center).
It wasn't. The Russian General said the ship was "in the North Sea". In case you didn't know, that could be a lot of places, like right off the coast of Iceland or Scotland. US naval doctrine says that it'll take a minimum of three carrier groups to approach the Kola Peninsula. They wouldn't put on up there all by itself with no escort.
Right? Especially after a nuclear attack. I was thinking, where are her escorts? Where is the combat air patrol? The ship seemed asleep and unprepared. You'd think an organization like the US Navy would remember Pearl Harbor and never be caught sleeping and unprepared again.
It's definitely an accomplishment to catch a carrier off guard, since a carrier always has a carrier escort fleet, atleast 1 or 2 jets ready to be launched within 2-3 minutes (if not already having 1-2 jets in the sky) and an advanced radar system capable of detecting the intercepting aircrafts long before they get within reach of the carrier.
far from being unrealistic, this is as realistic as it can get in a movie! you might find it hard to belive that a squadron of tu 22 can penetrate an aicracftcarrier battle group defences, But make no mistakes! 1. the carrier was close to russian shore, 2. the backfires were on the jamming mode, hard to detect them. 3, and most important, the missiles were fired from hundred of km from the carrier. this is just a movie stuff, the movie compressed the time between the launch of the missiles and the time they hit the carrier. 4. carriers are not invincible! actually , in a real life situation this is the likely scenario!
***** i don t know why every time someone states something different from your own misbelifes you need to insult him/her . anyway i m not goning to lower myself to your level. but you don t know anything about naval strategy in general and russian naval strategy in particular. yes , o your smartness , carriers have a carrier battle group or carrier strike group depending on the mission, but russian antiship missiles(in this case the raduga kh 22 , carried by the tu 22 m3 maritime strike bomber) have this special inbuilt quality to ignore lesser ships,that is the escort, and to focus on the carrier. indeed , it is difficult to get thrugh a carrier defences. but that s why russian naval strategists have developed the so call sworn attack. that is launching as many missile as it can get, and as many decoys(dumb missiles) and as many jamming devices that would suffocate the carrier defences.
***** and as i said . in this movie the time is compressed for the dramatic effect! for the scene to be fully realistic, it would have taken 2 3 hours. we would have seen ticonderoga cruisers fireing the aegis system, we would have seen f 14 or f 14 engaging the backfires, we would have seen mig 31 escorts engaging the carrier fighters. but again....IT S A MOVIE! as relistic as it can get in a MOVIE!
petroplovosk There is nothing realistic about this scenario whatsoever. It is not even realistic in this movie, since this did not even occur in the book, "The Sum of All Fears". This book was written in 1991, this movie was made in 2002 The original carrier Attack that this scene was based on was from a previous Tom Clancy book called "Red Storm Rising", about the initial exchanges in a Soviet/Warsaw Pact vs USA/NATO conventional war taking place in 1986 Realistic, would have included 70+ F14s and F18s in the air to try and shoot down the Backfires. Realistic would have included AArleigh Burke Destroyers....and also Perry Class Frigates....and E2 Hawkeyes and a variety of other things that would happen. This scenario in this movie, is utterly preposterous. In the original book in 1986, the scenario was handled properly and done well. This was just idiotic and not realistic at all. In the book, the Backfires & Badgers won, by teh BAdgers using kelt missiles as electronic decoys, luring all the F14s guarding the NATO convoy away and fooling then into firing all their phoenix missiles....and then the Backfires turned loose their missiles and most were shot down, but 12 got through the screen. and they hit a large NATO convoy, causing a great deal of damage....and that was in 1986. The scenario was *VERY* realistic in the book....two US Carriers are hit and damaged, a french carrier is sunk and a US Amphibious Assault ship carrying 2500 marines is completely destroyed in a massive explosion. This in the movie, is utterly preposterous....it is most certainly not as "realistic as it can get". They could have done this in 10-15 minutes with great realism, 1 minute, is not as realistic as you can get.
@MrGeforcerFX ASMs are extremely lethal, whoever might deploy them. Their record is absolutely devastating: as early as in ww2, used in limited numbers by the Luftwaffe, they sank and crippled a large number of enemy warships, including capital ships -batlleships like the Roma (sunk) and the HMS Warspite (crippled for months). In the Flaklands, used in limited numbers by Argentina, they scored lethal hits on British vessels. As for the latest Russian ones, expect even higher power of destruction
@ULTRAHITLER Actually this clip is from Sum of All Fears, not Red Storm Rising (and btw, this wasn't in that book either). Also, keep in mind Red Storm Rising was published in 1986, and even then the Soviets had to use a pretty clever ruse to damage the Nimitz group. It is very, very difficult to penetrate a combat air patrol now that radar can detect inbound targets hundreds of miles away. Even back in WW2 it was difficult. This is why the Soviets invested so much in missile-armed subs.
@ViciousCritique Exactly. It is big, but its harder to hit than you might think. you got AWACS patroling, 60 aircraft in the sky around it (Nimitz Class) 7-13 ships following it, and one submarine... hard to get close, especially if you got F-18's surrounding it in a radius of 300 km. if one bogey is detected, then all ships are at highest alert.
I don't know why but its oddly refreshing to see a US Navy supercarrier actually attacked and significantly damaged by Russian bombers...its fantasy but u don't see it often....I miss the cold war...
I find it intresting how even so many missles impacted the ship, what, 3 or 4? More? It still failed to sink the ship. In a realistic world the ship probably returned to port under its own power was FMC in 6 months at the LATEST.
@RamadaArtist If you saw the classified report (I have read it multiple times) you would know that the Captain, XO and TAO didn't even come close to preparing the ship for combat. The missiles were detected by ES, but the ROE at the time prevented any defensive measures. THAT has been changed. Now, in the same situation, the result would be very different. The FFG's have been redesigned with post-Stark improvements.
4. The Backfires wouldn't have the fuel to reach launch point flying that low, even with refueling in the air. They'd have to fly high for a long way to make the fuel stretch, and the cat would be out of the bag.. Between land based and satellite based radar, there's no dark zones in the oceans.
Air-to-ship missile attacks have actually be shown to be extraordinarily effective (look up the French Exocet missile in particular; in 1987 the USS Stark was struck by two missiles from a single fighter, fired at 15 and 20 miles, and "the frigate did not detect the missiles with radar and warning was given by the lookout only moments before the missiles struck.") It's pretty widely accepted that the volume of missile fire required to overwhelm a ship is only a fraction of the cost of the ship.
@tdfisk You are entirely correct. This was a movie with glaring errors. Carriers control an area about the size of California anyway and probably navigate with real-time satellite coverage making their effective defense area even larger. It is unlikely that anything would ever really get in range that the carrier didn't know about.
@Brikjard The Tu-22M/AS-6 (with a 1000kg warhead, no less, and designed to punch through armor before detonating) combination *was* Soviet Naval Aviation's answer to a NATO CVBG. The twist he used which I found interesting was using target drones launched from Tu-16s to divert the fighter CAP. The fact that the Admiral commanding the Nimitz CVBG was a trifle complacent didn't hurt either.
@ULTRAHITLER I was referring to the Aegis Network including the (Arliegh Burke and Ticonderoga Class) used across the fleet and beyond. Without getting to specific as to Destron locations they can be anywhere and tasked with non fleet related missions. I stand corrected as to the 20mm DU rounds, I had Warthog on my brain. Since this scene was hugely overestimated, I felt poetic licence to do the same. Thanks for the corrections.
@timeflex Developed by different companies around the same time using shared technology IIRC. One developed by Novator and the other by Raduga with different roles/launch platforms invisaged. The Kh-55 and the RK-55/3M10 are similar but separate missiles. As for MC02, this one seems a favourite among the anti-carrier groups. By nature of the - exercise - and to get conclusive results, the carrier was placed far closer in-shore than a sane commander ever would have found himself for real.
supersonic cruise missle swarm is the way to go. This is what the chinese would do if it came right down to it over taiwan. "In the end, the Americans will care more for their Los Angeles, than they will for Taiwan" Anonymous Chinese General
@zappasaurus: Yes. Still, in a time of cheap,small,disposable propeller driven planes armed with one torpedo and/or a few bombs, and slow submarines, you took heavy losses: several carriers were destroyed and others were hit hard, not to mention losses of cruisers, destroyers and other military vessels. Tu-22m3 is FASTER than F/A-18s and 18E/Fs on CVNs, and its been upgraded with new avionics. Bombers aside, the Russians have many other options to shower a Task Force with supersonic missiles.
Regardless, when carrier groups operate nearby potential threaths, the still run the "warning" and "defense" procedures. Its not like the lay on the deck in swim shorts and turn off the defense systems.
@Skylur45 the sequence from the book was long, very detailed and involved a reasonable explanation of the complexities involved in achieving a hit on the actual carrier itself, the film gave it 60 seconds... from the take off to the missiles impacting. It's also worth pointing out that book was set in the early 80s at the height of soviet power, i doubt Russia has the resources to pull it off today after their air force has languished for 30 years and the US has upgraded its fleet continuously.
@amapolishplummer If you mean upon landing, all planes that deploy braking parachutes will release them when they have slowed enough to the pilots liking. They are then collected, and depending on their state, either reused or disposed of.
@BitnikGr And it'd be also more logical to mount anti-cruisemissile defenses on the ground as part of the air-defense since they target land objects. I don't know if there are such specific anti-cruise tools in reality though.
Южный Урал You kid yourself if you think either is weak. America cannot be called weak, they still have enough firepower to destroy the entire world, as do Russia. I admire Russian military technology, but you have to understand that America have been spending more than the rest of the world combined on their military for many years. You only see a fraction of what they have. No one will see any of it until the next great war.
@Elthenar It's not a common use weapon 'cause it's quite expensive, low range and stay armed for quite long but limited time. So you can't seed the whole ocean, but it's quite useful on unavoidable courses, mostly like sea straits
I don't remember this from the book - read it a long time ago (great book, though!). I DO remember this happening in Red Storm Rising (one of my favorite books of all time). In that book the soviets launched a mess of older cruise missiles from Badgers first to draw out the Tomcats. Then a massive wave of Backfires came in behind and launched a couple hundred longer range missiles. The fleet spent it's compliment of AMM's and 2 hit the... Nimitz? Can't remember for sure.
@MrPyromaster247 Well, in general you're right about the proximity issue. It is very hard to get close to a carrier group, but if the CG is close to land you might be able to do some sneaking up to a certain extent. But you musnt forget that those anti-ship missiles that the bombers fire aren't firecrackers. Standoff range of hundreds of kilometers, mach 4 speed and a conv. warhead of a ton, or possibly even a small nuke.
@timeflex One Bear overflew the ship, the other sat 50nm off it. Just because it overflew doesn't mean the USN didn't know of its presence ahead of time. As I recall, the Bears were detected 500nm out; from that point on they were monitored as they closed and as one of them chose to close to within visual range. Seems the USN did pretty well out of that, an initial detection of 500nm, under peacetime conditions at that, gives a whole host of options available to the carrier group commander.
Major Vulnerabilities dude if you have not signed up and have not served in the US Navy or military for that matter your research is flawed. Till you see this shit in real life you dont know a damn thing.
They are not, but they aren't easy sitting duck targets as some claim. Everything in America is shit, Russia #1! That's the levels of RU-vid logic we are dealing with.
While the movie and book are quite different ( I also prefer the book, Clancy is -or was- a great writer) I think this was put into the movie as a nod to "Red Storm Rising" which may never be made into a movie but which was a tremendously well-written book. There is a very well done scene in that book of a battle between a US-led carrier force and a force of Soviet bombers. So that may be the inspiration for this scene in the "Sum of All Fears" movie.
@timeflex As for being your 2nd paragraph. From memory, during that incident in 2008 the Bears were detected 500nm out and Hornets were scrambled. From that point on, the Bears existed at the will of the USN; the state of peace, legality and the absence of a threat gave no reason for the USN to take direct action. That's a carrier whose rough location is known operating under peacetime conditions, likely not under EMCON and not practicing deceptive maneuver. Once again, not exactly a triumph.
@Nechriste Su-27 has a range of 3530km at altitude and the MiG-29 has a range of 1430km. So they can provide support at a little over half way across the pacific and a third of the way across the pacific respectively. The only interceptors carriers have now are F/A-18's. I was under the impression that their longest range missile (AIM-120) had a range of about 72km. This means they'd have to engage well within the the SU-27/MiG-29's R-27EM range of 170km.
@timeflex No, emissions in this context refers to any militarily identifiable radio-frequency energy coming from the carrier and surrounding ships that could alert practically any opfor ESM screen as to what emitted it and roughly where it was. Don't emit and don't give the enemy the chance to locate you passively, he has to try and do it actively and emit himself. Nope, launching and recovering aircraft under absolute radio silence is something the USN trains for and is very capable of doing.
@gtikounaify Correction, that was the HMS Sheffield. The reason the Exocet hit her is because her radar was shut off for a communication to London. I was glued to the Falkland War when it was happening. That was a very incomplete and vulnerable task force, still it was a lucky shot. The Argentinian Mirage III would have never survived a complete naval task force, the plane would have been shot down long before reaching it's range. So I agree with you. Thomas
@ooglyduckling During the Gulf war there were two SSM's fired, one Styx was shot down by the British before it got into CIWS range and the other homed in on a pier in Kuwait and damaged a nearby movie theater. The P-15 (SS-N-2 B/C) Styx is the oldest, slowest, dumbest, missile still in use. On a good day, only half of those fired would even make it to the target area, much less actually hit the target.
I think that the backfires had the radar down, in fact the carrier command first loses them on radar initially, then it reappears on the radar when the missiles already had been fired...
@TheLong2206 By the way, the aegis ships are usually linked with early-warning satellites so that they can detect any low-flying objects flying from over the horizon.
The Schkval has a puny range and any submarine close enough to release would already be at the bottom of the ocean courtesy of a Mk48 ADCAP. Also, any aircraft dropping of Moskits would have to be at maximum 120 miles away, well within radar and CAP coverage standard to a CVBG. The Phalanx Block1B is designed to counter sea-skimming missiles, plus any Nimitz is also equipped with RIM-116 and Sea Sparrow point defense missiles.
@rvfharrier Yes, this is indeed a big "IF". However, my point was that it is not impossible to carry a surprise attack out against CVBG. Also, just to those of you guys who haven't watched this movie -- the US navy detected the wave much earlier than it show in these 2 sections of fragment linked together.
The funny thing is just how close they thought the backfires would get. In reality awacs(if not the ships own radar) would’ve picked them up miles away, and dispatched cap. As well as having any nearby ships assume a defensive position to the side which the bombers were. The idea that these guys would just slip by… it’s crazy.
Here's my issue with this scene. 1. A nuclear weapon was detonated in an American city, a attack that could be a precursor to a larger attack. 2. After such an attack, the Carrier would be under total EMCON or emissions control, meaning she's not using her radars or radios since the Russians could easily home in on those signals and launch their ASM's. 3. Carriers and US military forces worldwide would at the very least be at DEFCON 3, war would be imminent. That would mean combat air patrols around CBG's and the E-2 Hawkeyes would provide AWACS support. Could the Russians take out one of our carriers? I would say yes, why do you think they are so well protected? Because they are priority targets. In the film, the carrier seemed at peace time conditions, (in sure they heard about Baltimore being nuked) and they were caught totally unprepared.
@zipacna1980 Two problems, one the British weren't using Aegis during the Falklands War. Type They were using less advanced fire control radars at the time which had great difficulty tracking small aircraft at sea level. Two, these missiles aren't following the sea surface. The AS-4 kitchen missile, unlike some other Russian missiles like the SS-N-22, flies at altitude and is pretty big target (since it has such a heavy payload), making it easier to track.
@amapolishplummer The brake chutes can be collected in minutes, seconds if there are crew at the end of the runway. Some runways are wide enough to allow two planes at a time to land safely, but usually they land one by one, so you could get an entire squadron down if necessary in less than 20 minutes. But as we are not in full scale war, it is unlikely that will happen. And a Squadron is usually about 12 aircraft.
@zipacna1980 The F-14 was specifically developed to intercept the Tu-22M back it its hay day. The powerful radar, the high powered engines, and the AIM-54 Phoenix were all there to knock out the Tu-22M before it could launch its AS-4 Kitchens. Nowadays, The AS-4 Kitchen was retired in favored of the smaller and shorter ranged AS-16, which actually has less range than the SM-2ER which would be carried by Aegis equipped warships, and requires the Tu-22M to get within an interceptable range.
Well from the start there is today a tactic wich can go throught the AEGIS , and it involves OSCAR class submarines aproaching the target fleet as much as possible and unleashing a ton of missiles very low.. the AEGIS screen would had a very short time to deal with them and it has the horizon limit (thats why Spanish F-100 AEGIS frigates mounted the SPY radar antennas higher, to gain more horizon sight)
@petunized Unless you think the missile is faster than light, it WILL be seen on radar. And the Phalanx shell's speed makes no difference, it will still hit the missile before impact, as it was designed to do.
My dear friend TequilaShooter! It's you again. Combat radius of Tu-22M3 is 2410 km (or 1301 nm) + range of Kh-22 more than 300 nm. Combat radius of Hornet and Super Hornet (with all my great respect to this aircrafts ;) ) is around 400 nm (as interceptor). Carrier in the middle of the ocean isn't a threat to anybody. So, let it go. P.S. I'm absolutely agree with you about dumb bombs - fantastically bad idea.
Plus there would be also tu-160s the smaller kh-15 missile(24 missiles per Tu-160 while 3 kh-22s per T-22M) attacking plus possibly long range and naval fighter escort(Su-27s or Su-33s). The kh-15 is also a monster that moves at mach 5 terminal speed that could easily sink any kind of vessel except a supercarrier in 1 hit. Not to mention formations of sea skimming P-700 granits and P-1000 travelling at mach 2.5 and able to do evasive maneuvers.
@Ahamster1 - where do video shows that Tu-22 have visual link to the ships? I see him connect his tone and fire missile... Kh-22M have data link on him and can cruise to detect his target at 1,000km even...
@rvfharrier Different bureaus -- yes purely because of different launching platforms (air launched vs sub/surf). But -- same size, same components, same speed, same operational range, same payload even the same engine. Sure there are differences -- air launched variant does not require rocket starter, doesn't have to be put into 533 torpedo tube, doesn't have to cope with acceleration during initial phase or withstand harsh sea environment etc etc etc.
@rvfharrier "Hardly a triumph" ;-) It was Japanese air force who detected them and scrambled F-15, but it was already too late. Locating, approaching and targeting are the tactical task to learn during exercises. That's exactly what been done by those planes. And about the distance... Kh-55 can be launched from up to 2000 nm (all 16 of them a from single plane).
@timeflex It would indeed be very hard if the group was under strict wartime EMCON, I'm glad you finally understand that; we seem to be making progress! Even harder if the ship then supplements it with deceptive maneuver. Stay emissions-silent yourself and you force the opposition to go active to try to find you, giving their positions away in the process, handing you the initiative and the choice of what to do with them. A, very, different ballgame to the one in which these overflights occur.
@TheRetirednavy92 This is Red Storm Rising, based on the Tom Clancy book of the same name. In said book, the Soviet bombers attack and severely damage a carrier battle group. Clancy, all personal issues aside, is considered to be an expert by people within the military establishment and has been right on some fronts when it comes to naval technology. If he thinks the Reds could do it, there's a good chance they might've.
@rvfharrier They have 80+ military/dual purpose satellites operating right now. They have 949A subs. They have P-700 "Granit" and "Mosquito" of ship/subs/air modification. The pack of 24 of those launched from the single platform has 0.95 probability to destroy CVBG even on full alert. They do NOT require external radar tracking, they work as group sharing data among eachother. And my point was -- there is a huge difference even for US forces between being under attack and being on full alert.
I recall the testimony of a US Admiral in a congressional hearing some years back when asked how long would the US aircraft carrier fleet would last if war with the Soviet Union broke out. A straightforward question to which his response was simply "36 hours". Lets try not to get to that position again.
@Nechriste The BVR combat would inflict devistating losses on the F/A-18's, Of whom survived to launch their AIM-120's inside 72km, fewer would make it back to the carrier as the Su-27's would run them down over the 500-600km distance they were intercepting at due to the Mach .55 differences in their top speeds.
I saw the commented version, by Tom Clancy and the movie director... and all Tom was asking was "Why did you do this?", "why did you do that?"... He sure knew they had ruined every kind of realism making the script.
@Spionsilver Against the raid of 4 Backfires, 3 escorts would've been enough. In Red Storm Rising, 70 Backfires get off 140 missiles. The group's SAMs get 100, with the AEGIS cruiser getting ~60% before running out of SAMs to shoot.
I think it might be possible. At this days cruise missiles are flying not by straight line, they got unexpectable trace. And the most important - you can't do anything with large group instant-launched missiles ( they got real-time on-line group coordination ) at short time, aircraft will be damaged anyway. IMHO.
@zipacna1980 The two were largely responsible as a countermeasure to Soviet bombers, and more importantly, were retired around the same timeframe as the Soviet technology they were meant to counteract. In Red Storm rising, they'd be relevant as the movie is circa 1980 something.
@dharmdevil That's something most do not understand. A carrier group has BVR capability. It's not like in WW2 where they only have AAA guns. The Phalanx ist the last line of defence.
@homskoult I was the primary Non-destructive Inspector on the last combat cruise for the F14 and all I have to say in response is that, and that whoever it is, will be fighting in the shade. ;)
@cavador20011 The true is that current "attack-defense" technology loop is on attacker's side, highest level defence cannot stay against highest level attack No use of 100 miles 'cause "Granit" (Shipwreck) or "Volcano" missiles may be launched on upto 700km distances. Also on 2.5M speed (4M in some modes) interception isn't as easy as it shown in movie: you just see the whole pack ran out from behind the horizon, count 1-2-3-4-5 aiming maneuvring targets and get your sides pierced through.
