are surface navys obsolete?

What I'd like to know is which countries have air forces strong enough to overwhelm a carrier battle group's defenses? That's a very short list, I think.

 

Maybe sneek-up mission?

Grieg,only thing i know that Russia stoped surface ship race with US,and redirect funds in AS missiles,and in it withouth any doubt,atleast 10y in that techology over the US in same field.AS missiles proowen to be dedly in the past (Excorist at least),but one thing is right,i dont think that US will be stupid to come with their ships in range for AS coastal strike,but if they do,it will be fatal probably.Newerless,there is certan chance that some plane can reach range for AS weapon and shoot the missiles.One otther thing,coz look we speak about Iran.I dont think that US got enough resources to hold on 3 fronts atm (afganistan,especialy Iraq,and possible Iran),and iran is diferent terein from Iraq,and probably harder nutt to crack.

But point is that Russian modern AS missiles r fully capable to destroy any western surface ship.

 

Why SSSR and Warshaw pact neglected large surface fleet can be seen from taking even cursory look at the map. SSSR has suprisingly little coastline sutable for use as base. Baltic was/is bottled up by Gemany, Denmark and Norvay, Black see is bottled up by Turkey, North see (Murmansk, Arhangelsk...) is close to Norvay and is not sutable for large scale surface fleet. That leaves Pacific with it's main base at Vladivostok which is to close to Japan and Aliaska. SSSR had one small base in Syria which is still mentained to this day by Russia but that was more or less it. One of the greatest fears of the cold war (for NATO) was that Yugoslavia would allow use of it's coast and ports as base of the Soviet fleet in Mediteranean.

This and overall defesive setting of SSSR was the main reason for SSSR to abandon idea of large fleets and concentrate on AS missiles and submarines. Basicly AS missiles and rocket propelled torpedos were developed to minimise the cost of destruction of enemy fleet.
Missiles that were mentioned in that Australian article are all product of SSSR and were developed in the 1960's - 80's. Development was basicly stoped by lack of money, but lately Indian and Chinese interest in these missiles allowed additional funds to be found for further development.

 

Tomahawks and Exocets have been used in battle and have proven themselves. What ships or targets have been destroyed with these Russian missiles?

 

Didn't the Egyptian Navy sink an Israeli destroyer back in the 1960s with Soviet-made missiles?

 

Yes, but this discussion was about the new generation of Russian antiship missiles that some are so enthused about that they think surface ships might have become obsolete. I would be skeptical of such claims, to say the least.

 

Yes, I don't see how can the Navy can ever be obsolote...

Like I said, what alternative is there to move troops across the sea?

 

They did not used yet in combat,but test was more then enough to see their potencial.US nawy can be consider luckey with that fact,especialy coz US usualy give weapon to Russian enemy in wars,but Russian did not give their best weapons.Do u remember how "heat" was maden when some Merkava vas destroyed by Russian "Vampire RPG".

 

So would I. If the world's missiles functioned as well as their manufacturers claimed, ever ship and plane in the world wouldn't stand a chance.

 

...until a countermeasure is worked out.

 

There is that. Of course, the countermeasures don't always work as well as advertised, either.

 

True but no defense will ever be perfect but you have to look at it this way:

Side A has fifty Anti Ship missiles
Side B has fifty ships
If its taken twenty missiles to sink one side B's ship...
It isn't going to end well for side A

 

Good point! :lol:

 

Complely right,tests showed that if u got alot misiles to shower ur fleet,and alot radar signals,some of them will pass and hit.

 

sinissa:
I haven't seen you posting for awhile... welcome back to the 'boards.'

Tim