Here you go c.captain. This is/was the real Russian (Pinko Commies) navy. Take a close look at their anchor when they are done. We had a small dent about 3’ across and a few inches deep. The Yorktown lost a bunch of handrails and one of the Harpoon tubes was cracked. God I miss those days when we had a real enemy.
[QUOTE=RkyMtn Paul;116971]Take a close look at their anchor when they are done.[/QUOTE]
It looks exactly like it did before the collision. They dropped it out of the pocket before impact, probably thinking it would do some damage to the American ship. The video clearly shows that.
Personally I’m not convinced that was intentional. Another option to ponder: Being a witness to a number of alongside operations with the USN ( and seeing their botched approaches) it seems to me this ruskie was trying a close pass, and got sucked in. The Russians during the cold war years didn’t do alongside refueling like we do, but opted for astern rigs for fuel, may still be the case for that matter. Given they are not practiced in such approaches seems more like a case of misjudging the stern wake and underestimating the dynamics between both ships in close proximity. Then again he could have been one crazy Russian.
I assure you, it was very intentional. The ship crossing the stern is an ice class ship with reinforced bow. They tried first. We were about 7 miles off the Crimean Peninsula with flag hoists to alter course or be rammed. I was a sigs and was on watch. We were exercising “Right of innocent passage” ops, even though we were spying on their asses with our crypto guys. We would make 2 incursions into the Black Sea each deployment. A couple of years earlier, we were inside 4 miles. That promted a UN complaint with a warning by the USSR. Steamer, the forward fluke on their anchor is gone. Here’s the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Caron_(DD-970)#Incident_in_Soviet_waters Now that I think of it, did the Soviets ever fire guns or missles in anger?
The transcript of the Russian officers is an interesting read. I stand corrected. (but still looks much like a few botched USN approaches of years past).
[QUOTE=RkyMtn Paul;117010] Now that I think of it, did the Soviets ever fire guns or missles in anger?[/QUOTE]
They shot down KAL 007.
I think all the growth on the bottom is what’s keeping it afloat
Man, I just had the most horrible Whale Whores flashback! Only thing missing is the bloated carcass of the great Phat Phuck himself there on the bow!
.
[QUOTE=RkyMtn Paul;117010]Now that I think of it, did the Soviets ever fire guns or missles in anger?[/QUOTE]
The list is too long to post:
c.captain, that’s f-ing funny. Steamer, that’s a hell of a list and a few I knew of. Was thinking of ships in NGFS (naval gunfire support) and/or missile launches, not the fly boys. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Beirut, Iraq. A relative used to fly, as a special passenger, missions out of Japan towards Russian airspace to get various intel, especially chain of command comm’s. Then I remembered the story of subs being where they were especially not supposed to be and being depth charged to be chased away. Operation Ivy Bells was just the beginning. All back in the '80s.
[QUOTE=Steamer;117115]The list is too long to post:
http://sw.propwashgang.org/shootdown_list.html[/QUOTE]
Interesting read. Never heard of a MiG-15 Fagot before. Funny name. Probably much less amusing when its shooting at you.
Reminds me of a joke:
A BBC TV journalist is interviewing a elderly former Polish fighter pilot.
Interviewer: So Mr Stanczewski, I understand that in 1943 you shot down five German aircraft in a single engagement. Could you tell us what happened?
Polish Fighter Pilot: Well we were flying at 20,000 feet when we spotted five Fokkers flying along below us. So we dived down and I aimed at one of the Fokkers and fired a burst from my machine guns right into him and he exploded.
Interviewer: I should point out for the benefit of the viewers at home, that the Fokker was a type of German aircraft used in the war.
Polish Fighter Pilot: No, no, no - these fokkers were Messerschmitts!
Yeah, the 16 P-500 anti-ship missiles on the Slava-class cruiser look pretty impressive. However, I don’t understand the point of yelling “no reloads”. How many anti-ship missiles (Harpoon, Tomahawk) an equivalent US cruiser with vertical launch system carries? Probably no “96 to 120”.
Also, don’t forget that the Slava class carries 64 long-range (S-300) and 40 short-range (OSA-M) surface-to-air missiles, six CIWS turrents (AK-630), ASW rocket launchers, torpedo tubes and a twin 130 mm main gun in addition to the big missiles…
Anyway, it’s an old ship with old armament. If there was one Soviet/Russian warship to drool for, I’d call Kirov…
A Ticonderoga-class cruiser can carry 122 missiles in its vertical-launch battery, plus 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The most important factor I’d say is the Aegis weapon system which enables these munitions to hit their target.
[QUOTE=rob;117551]A Ticonderoga-class cruiser can carry 122 missiles in its vertical-launch battery, plus 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The most important factor I’d say is the Aegis weapon system which enables these munitions to hit their target.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention we can put AEGIS on ‘auto’ and any thing that qualifies for a pre-set course and speed will get fired upon by whatever missile variant AEGIS deems best. AEGIS may be old, but is still pretty awesome. Now the Aussies have developed a pretty sweet destroyer with a fire control radar better than our Arleigh Burke’s SPY with illuminator panels instead of the rotating ones like we have. I believe they only have two of the new one, but it is still pretty sweet. And I think they are better equipped to use it in a tactical situation as they don’t have to go through as much BS before they are actually able to put missiles out of the launcher. Not to mention, their navigators have to do everything our pilots do (draw out the entire chart from memory, etc). AND, on top of that they do something where they have to con a ship through a port while facing aft with nothing but a stopwatch and people calling out soundings. Pretty badass if you ask me. We could take a lot of cues from the Aussies and the Brits. Unfortunately, I don’t think its ever going to happen with our Navy. We are too resistant to change.
Hey…here’s something from the Aussies worth watching
I bet you think that Seaman Clayton Hartwig caused the turret of the IOWA to detonate with a secret device because he was spurned by his gay lover…don’t you?
EFFING STOOPID COVER-IT-UP WE-ARE-INCAPABLE-OF-COMMITTING-ANYTHING-WRONG NAVEE!
What do you think happened?
It was powder bags that had become unstable over time. So, no, I don’t think it was a spurned gay lover. Only c.captain continues to think about gay lovers decades after the fact.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=KP05;119639]their navigators have to do everything our pilots do (draw out the entire chart from memory, etc). AND, on top of that they do something where they have to con a ship through a port while facing aft with nothing but a stopwatch and people calling out soundings. Pretty badass if you ask me. We could take a lot of cues from the Aussies and the Brits. Unfortunately, I don’t think its ever going to happen with our Navy. We are too resistant to change.[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t sound badass, more like a dumbass waste of time.
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;119691]It was powder bags that had become unstable over time. So, no, I don’t think it was a spurned gay lover. Only c.captain continues to think about gay lovers decades after the fact.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
That doesn’t sound badass, more like a dumbass waste of time.[/QUOTE]
Well the Aussies aren’t the only ones who do it, also the Brits, and New Zealanders. I learned about it when we had a few Australian officers board us for a few days during RIMPAC 2012 off of Pearl Harbor. Maybe there are other reasons that they do it, but from what they were explaining to me is that they do it for general familiarity of the port. The navigator is required to know their ports just that well and during their transits they practice an exactness with respect to Navigation that we just aren’t familiar with. They also do it during DIVTACS. I am sure there is more to how and why they do it, I was just impressed with the practice. But then again, their officers are like our merchant side. If you’re a deck officer, you’re a deck officer for your whole career, and if you’re an engineer, you’re an engineer for your career. Not to mention, their officers can actually fail out of navigation school which lasts several years as opposed to our 2 month school and OJT.
Ok I was wrong regarding the whole purpose. Was just having beers with a SWO who works with naval weapons and research development at John Hopkins, and he was onboard an Aussie ship when they did this. Said they put up big white sheets on the windows, the CO stepped outside on the bridge wing as a safety observer, and with rocks and shoal water on either said they transited in and out of the port at 35 knots with nothing but a stop watch.
As to WHY they did it. He said the point was that they can do it without radar in the dark or low vis. Basically, if they are in a tactical situation and don’t want to be detected, often warships will turn off their radar and all major electronic devices and go ‘dark’. This way they can come at a vessel high speed with no electronics on and get close enough to fire a missile at someone. There may be additional reasons as to why they did it, but it was his understanding that was the main one.