Why Russian Ships Are More Heavily Armed Compared to the US?

Dive now into endless and fierce sea battles! Click bit.ly/CovertCabalBW to download.
Use the gift code “Covert” and claim the time-limited gift!
Download - Profile - More - Giftcode - Input "Covert" - Done!
We started a Podcast - Tac Ops - / tacops - or find it on any typical podcast location
For Business Inquires - [e-mail]
If you'd like to help support me continue to create videos, you can do so here...
Patreon (Monthly) - / covertcabal
PayPayl (One Time Donations) - www.paypal.me/covertcabal
Discord - / discord
Names at the end are of supporters at Silver Level on Patreon, and $10 or more on PayPal
If you would like to have your name kept private, feel free to send me an email, or contact me through Patreon
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com

[@jhulvincentcalabia4784]

USA: Aircraft Carriers Russia: Missile Carriers

[@monmonfiasco6391]

Japan: Destroyer with Aircraft

[@TotalDbag24]

@@monmonfiasco6391 WW2 Japan: Submarine with aircraft

[@stephenlamb9008]

I would not like to be on a carrier, especially when Russia as the right idea on fighting a modern war you don't build carriers they are easy targets, look how many ships were sunk in ww11, not safe on a ship or a tank etc ect I would rather be on foot than perched on a ship, it's not about how big our aircraft carrier is it's about men putting their lives at risk by being part of the target, it's all about the missiles now modern warfare will be different as it proves ww1 was not close to ww11 and ww111 will be more ferocious than ww11 ships would play a small part but would be sunk early on as to maintain distance planes would be easy targets on both sides, sub's would be the best bet but once they loose of missiles they probably could be tracked and turned into watery graves, most probably some military nutter out there probably thinks a nuclear war can be won, I don't think so all involved in this ww111 will of wished they were nether born, END OF.

[@michaeldobson107]

@@stephenlamb9008 With the obvious rise of the CCP (and it's "we're gonna dominate the world" rhetoric, I don't think we will need to concern ourselves with the Russians and Americans going head to head. Seems to me they might suddenly become fast friends and allies over a shared concern.

[@Dimitrievich-Sudeyev]

@@michaeldobson107 have you ever considered that western paranoia is the only reason our relations are bad to begin with? And yes I Understand the Soviet Union had its unpleasant moments, but that’s fizzled out at this point.

[@711jastin]

US: Floating airfields Russia: Floating missile platforms

[@BBBrasil]

US: 11 Floating airfields + accompanying armadas Russia: Floating missile platforms

[@tomtdh4903]

US + nato we just annihilate Russia. The British type 46 has a bigger gun and much better Air protection.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@tomtdh4903 Bruh Type 46 would get stomped on by the Kirov.

[@tomtdh4903]

@@lolasdm6959 it has a bigger naval gun and much better air defence they can track 1000 missiles coming in at one time. It’s literally the best in the world.

[@tomtdh4903]

@@lolasdm6959 Sea Viper can launch eight missiles in 10 seconds and simultaneously guide up to 16 missiles at a time

[@mauzoomali]

Russian warship Moskva sank after ammo compartment exploded following a missile strike. This is downside of being too heavily armed?

[@acebrandon3522]

Yes and No. To many variables to make a logical decision. War is hell and lady luck does sometimes plays a part in it.

[@Lithonion1]

As a veteran US Navy sailor, we use to make fun of how overloaded with weapon systems they were. More weapons just makes it easier to land a shot to light up the weapons stores and more systems that can fail and not work. Ask the crew of the Moskva how all those weapons and countermeasures worked for them.

[@kwtr1609]

Moskva be like

[@derekflegg2670]

That's what I was thinking.. It'd be like targeting an ammunition dump :0)

[@kitchenersown]

What? The ammo at the alright burke or ticon is just as easy to hit as it is with the Moskva.

[@Brian-qj4kk]

Lol go send you ship to fight russia. You cant win, you just talk 😭🤣

[@soviet_union1936]

they were turned off aka his is prove you kow northing of the russian anvy

[@alexandru.g8746]

Soviet Navy: I paid for the whole deck I M GONNA USE THE WHOLE DECK

[@an-2253]

We*

[@GTBANNA]

@@MartyGlaubitz lol thats doesn’t make sense.

[@electricalcoconut979]

@@GTBANNA its because you not 1% Russian my comrade.

[@eze3922]

@@GTBANNA you need to learn about OUR communism

[@GTBANNA]

@@electricalcoconut979 lol good Russia sucks. Long live the USA 🇺🇸

[@wst8340]

Russian radar operator "Captain,threat detected " Captain "Fire EVERYTHING ".

[@theplaguedoctor4242]

😏

[@guragat2]

Epic

[@arturandreev1412]

That's about right !!!

[@burung81]

then the captain get fired!

[@Joshua_N-A]

Russians in Evangelion be like..

[@BlunderMunchkin]

Heavily armed Russian cruiser Moskva apparently not heavily armed enough to avoid being destroyed by a country with no navy.

[@thongdinhngo8337]

Or maybe because of that "heavily armed" that makes the ship exploded. Imagine what happened if the missile hit the missile tube on the side of Moskva

[@RTWPimpmachine]

@@thongdinhngo8337 Yeah, basically. It is analogous to the obsession the British had with battlecruisers in WW1. Lightly armored, fast and packed as much punch as battleships. But if they got hit, boom. That is why despite significant advantages, the British took 2.5:1 losses at Jutland.

[@thongdinhngo8337]

@@RTWPimpmachine Right. NATO ships have less armed as a trade off for better protection and ammunition concealment. Packing a lot of ammunition without place to store make it become a floating bomb itself

[@rafiqp8800]

Apparently that's disinformation that Ukrainian Elensky claimed. You can't believe a word coming out of that comedian's mouth.

[@emintey]

@@thongdinhngo8337 Apparently so. Those cruise missiles were never meant to take out a warship the size of the Moskva so it was the secondary explosions that did the bulk of the damage. What it says also is that amphibious operations against the Odessa area are probably out of the question as Russian ships are apparently sitting ducks for land based anti-ship missiles.

[@raginasiangaming910]

Simply put, it's too expensive for another navy to seriously challenge the balance of power amongst blue water navies. Between the member nations (especially the US), NATO has an almost unassailable advantage in aircraft carriers and their associated escorts. It makes no sense for the Russians or Chinese to try to build Carriers and their associated escorts because they'd bankrupt themselves and probably still fail to close the gap. However, by operating their own, heavily armed coastal fleets under an umbrella of friendly air/SAM cover, the theory runs that they will be able to keep the US Carriers farther out to sea and therefore less able to support US amphibious operations. This is all logical given the global positions of the relative nations. China has never exhibited any interest in military expansion outside of its own sphere in East Asia (mainly because governing a quarter of the world's population keeps them plenty busy). Putin has aspirations to reacquire territories that once belonged to the Russian Empire, but those all have land borders with Russia. Thus, neither China nor Russia is likely to become involved in a war that would require a blue seas fleet. The US, on the other hand, is almost guaranteed to fight every conflict overseas. Thus, the US developed a navy to meet is strategic needs and the Russians and Chinese have done the same. Hopefully we never find out which is more effective because if we do, a lot of good people will die.

[@hudsonmatz2123]

Yea honestly, I was thinking the Russians can easily blow a hole in any of the United States ships and sink it, but at what cost? Their ships sinking too due to 24 Guided missiles that found their target 3 mins later….it would be total loss no body would be fighting for anything but their own lives at that point.

[@LazyFaux5656]

@@hudsonmatz2123 Exactly. War of attrition. Russia utilizes a defensive doctrine with it's Navy, while the US is posturing. One is a full costal nation (US) and one is primarily a landlocked-land mass. Why have a huge navy if you don't have a massive stretch of coastal waters.

[@vinny5638]

you structured this in a very digestible & concise way considering the healthy context required to explain, you could be a content creator or teacher for sure bro.

[@raginasiangaming910]

@@vinny5638 I considered it. I spent years in the military and then worked as a security contractor and analyst. However, I'm often busy with school and work and travel which limits my ability to learn and produce quality content. I try to give my perspectives and experience where I can.

[@Mulberry2000]

They buildiong carriers and china and Russia cannot go bankrupt. It can lack the means to buy products internaitonally esp. if the US et al bars russia from Swift payment system.

[@n0xter95]

Russian Minister of Armament: "Ivan, you see all this free space we have here on this ship?" Yes Blyat "Well, I don't want to"

[@ascentionios7012]

perfect

[@Kamal502]

🤣

[@notchs0son]

Russia must be fuming at this leak.

[@richardmillhousenixon]

I think you meant yes blin not yes blyat, because what you said was "Yes fuck."

[@n0xter95]

@@richardmillhousenixon I know what I said, and it is what I wanted to say

[@Feelthefx]

Welcome to the Covert Cabal comment section where everyone has a degree in Defense and Strategic Studies from West Point

[@Puzzoozoo]

Yep, so many modern warfare experts here, that the US DoD is foolish to employ expensive consultants and 'think tanks', when all they need do is read the comments here. 😁

[@threethrushes]

I wasn't aware that West Point was an degree-awarding body. (edit: 150 comments later, I am now aware.)

[@ronmaximilian6953]

Annapolis

[@tranceman9670]

I got mine from fruit loops.. does that count?

[@maccheese8379]

@@Puzzoozoo well to be frank, US do burn lots of money into the geniuses who isn't exactly genius.

[@leafybug04]

Ukraine sunk a Slava class destroyer with 2 missiles. I'm going to put my $ on the American Navy.

[@TimeMakerDotPH]

Russia's unique military features that you wouldn't see on any Western-based doctrine armies in the world: 1. Tanks with turret ejection system. 2. Drones with military-grade Canon cameras. 3. Ships with submarine diving capability.

[@christianballard4813]

LOL. Their tank turrets turn into aircraft when struck by javelin NLAW…

[@glorihol6803]

LMAO how'd this turn out for your little invincible leopards little boy? Pretty sure you set a record for highest flying turret! Good job western puppet!

[@glorihol6803]

@@christianballard4813 LMAO how'd this turn out for your little invincible leopards little boy? Pretty sure you set a record for highest flying turret! Good job western puppet!

[@jakekn7304]

​@@glorihol6803don't cry Mr Putin, your embarrassing yourself.

[@user-py6bo1jz2m]

​​@@glorihol6803 Actually thay did as expected: broke the Russian defensive line. How that for a 10day special military cockup.😅😅

[@mr.orwell5680]

The US didn’t abandon the Montana because of Missiles, they abandoned it after midway because the navy saw air power as the way forward

[@MrBurgerphone1014]

The Montana's were also canceled due to the Panama canal expansion project being canceled as well.

[@joeclaridy]

Don't forget the cost

[@fartnutssupreme4930]

Air and subs probably.

[@doubledekercouch]

Which in turn pushed the Essex and midway classes to have 30+ Essex class and 3 Midway’s which dwarfed every warship of the time in terms of dimensions

[@Lucas_Antar]

There’s more than one reason for making decisions like that.

[@zinedinezethro9157]

US: aircraft carrier addiction Russia: missile addiction

[@jimmy248]

I love me Stalin organ.

[@franz289]

Eventually, even Aircraft Carriers will be smaller. The rise of AI allows smaller faster drones to maneuver beyond the body’s capabilities under g-force. Its going to be a video game with the next War and mostly drones and robots fighting. Human element will be indoors controlling their equipment.

[@dmitrit.4862]

As a Russian, I gotta admit that you're not wrong. We do have a lot of missiles for different platforms and purposes. lol

[@zinedinezethro9157]

@@franz289 just meaning more ways for US to fulfill their Aircraft carrier addiction

[@zinedinezethro9157]

@@dmitrit.4862 everyone's addicted to something, for russia it's missiles i guess lmao

[@bradrum1]

Now the Moskwa is the most heavily armed submarine in the Black Sea.

[@glorihol6803]

just like the whole Ukrainian navy. i would say a ship for their entire navy is worth it little boy

[@jakekn7304]

​@@glorihol6803Russia is losing ships to a country without a navy😂. The whole Russian black sea fleet is hiding from Ukraine. Awww no moskva 😢

[@ChristopherWentling]

All those armaments didn’t save the Moskva.

[@glorihol6803]

neither did they save the ukron*zi navy, LOL

[@Harunavid]

Me minding my own business The FBI agents: let's recommend him the video about russian warship and see how he reacts.

[@Deno2100]

I think about those scenerio's too. I am probably on multiple watch lists.

[@shadowknight7584]

Ya

[@akhenatenmuriithi4493]

@@Deno2100 On a daily they recommend ISIS vids,and I still watch them🤣🤣

[@ascentionios7012]

@@akhenatenmuriithi4493 have you seen the abu haajar one? its pure gold

[@longjohn9930]

How would they know how you react? I usually scroll to the comment section.

[@r.b.seiple5913]

Russia/USSR has always classified its Carriers as "Aircraft carrying Cruisers" so that they will be allowed to transit through the Bosphourous Straits to access the Black Sea. The Montreux Convention allows Black Sea states to transit "Capital" ships greater than 15Ktons (which is the general warship tonnage limit for non-black sea states) but excludes "Aircraft Carriers"...

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

but it were not pure aircraft carriers, becuase aircrafts for USSR carriers is AA, not offence weapon. For example Kuznetsov carry aircrafts and antiship missles and its main role to provide AA cover

[@oatlord]

Some expert level knowledge in here.

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

@@oatlord it is soviet doctrine man, USSR and Russiaan doctorine is defence not attack...

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

@@rpgmarshal georgia first started assault, just yesterday European Court of Human Rights told that georgia started war in 08.08.2008. Same as ukranians started assault against russian citizen living in ukraine. BTW in Krimea were made referendum and krea people decide go back to russia, and russian forces made ZERO shots. And what made ukranians? they stopped to SELL water in krimea, not deliver for free, SELL... Pretty good care for own population in krimea from ukraine

[@leonidaliscano6792]

@@tsugumorihoney2288 p

[@SirMo]

Turns out packing so much firepower onto a ship is not such a great idea as the crew of Moskva at the bottom of the Black Sea found out.

[@thongdinhngo8337]

Or rather, packing so much ammunition and missile on deck turn the ship into floating bomb

[@sovietkrab1871]

@@thongdinhngo8337 tell me

[@Bigbadbenji2008]

This video aged well 😂😂

[@TiernanWilkinson]

"Yuo see Ivan, carry more guns and American misidentify yuo, and think you just from Texas."

[@byronixus9169]

as a texan, i can agree to that

[@gittyupalice96]

Or at the very least, the Americans will just give a thumbs up and keep driving.

[@MidnightRambler1964]

What did you just say???

[@arrielradja5522]

@@MidnightRambler1964 lol

[@lethalshed2272]

Xdddd

[@SahitDagani]

I built lego ships in my childhood and I did the exact thing Russians did to their ships! Guns & Missiles!

[@TiernanWilkinson]

Hell yeah, same here. My idea of making a good ship was to encrust it in firepower. ... Still kinda is, to be honest...

[@albee8259]

How to make the perfect Lego Destroyer Step 1: buy 100 lego destroyers Step 2: build a floating platform shaped like an empty ship Step 3: take out all the guns from your 100 Lego Destroyer set and slap them onto the platform shaped like an empty ship Step 4: Show the model to the Russian Navy and tell them to make a Big and Functioning ship that looks exactly like it Step 5: Congratulations you now have you own Lego Battleship

[@mlekoguy1119]

Same

[@dennythedavinchi3832]

I think that is all obvious childhood commonsense. More weapon, more power.

[@NeilPlaza]

Bigger missiles means bigger ships. I can feel that battleships will be back again.

[@valhalanguardsman2588]

Because if you can overwhelm the enemy ship's CIWS with enough missiles you will sink it no matter how big it is. Also having missiles "on deck" helps with ease of refitting the ship with bigger missiles, even if there will be fewer

[@cesaravegah3787]

Ivan paid for the entire deck, Ivan uses the entire deck damn it.

[@threethrushes]

Admiral Kuznetsov: I didn't choose the tug life, the tug life chose me.

[@lolasdm6959]

The Russian navy has tug boat surpremacy.

[@arkadeepkundu4729]

@@lolasdm6959 That puts them in a good spot to fight the fishing fleet supremacy of the Chinese though.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@arkadeepkundu4729 Well sadly China also have frigate surpremacy and corvette surpremacy.

[@jonathanthink5830]

right..... Kuznetsov cannot move on its own......

[@dimasakbar7668]

Just tug enemy continent closer to our plane carrying cruiser

[@giraudy221]

0:43 “Man, how are we supposed to get this ship across the ocean?” “Pack it into the back of my ship!”

[@insertcognomen]

lol...is that like a maritime tow truck?

[@DjDolHaus86]

I always liked the images of massive cargo freighters carrying other, smaller cargo freighters

[@user-oq2rk7ep8f]

@@insertcognomen no. That's a floating dock. Ship's are repaired there.

[@pinngg6907]

@@user-oq2rk7ep8f thx for the info

[@The_UPD.]

@@user-oq2rk7ep8f Lhugheny's Call of duty MW1 the musical starts and then *INTENSIFIES*

[@lancervi1762]

The only reason is that Russia doesn't have the naval airstrike capabilities of the US. That's it and that's all. In place of aircraft carriers and lots of them, they took the cheaper and some may say, more prudent approach, using mass missile strike capability to saturate and overwhelm a carrier strike group. Taken together with their sub fleet, it appears to be a formidable strategy.

[@eduwino151]

against a carrier with an airwing that will spot you first from a thousands miles away, russian ships would be killed long before they even knew a carrier was in the area

[@lancervi1762]

@@eduwino151 Oh, I don't disagree. I think the Russians would be hopelessly outmatched. I'm just explaining the rational the Soviets had. During the height of the cold war, when asked about the technical superiority of the west, Russia responding saying, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

[@patriciatutaki3322]

plus their landmass covers most of the northern hemisphere, so why do they need aircraft carriers when land based and serviced aircraft are so much easier, cheaper, logistically better... hell, they own most of the Arctic circle too, and that's another shortcut to western Europe and North-America .... and the Pacific and nth. Atlantic are handy too

[@DontAttme]

@@lancervi1762 the Germans were very good with quality with heavy tanks and fighters in the Second World War but could never pump out enough to match the Russians, the Brits or the Americans. For every tiger tank it was worth 10 Sherman’s, fortunately for the Americans they always had atleast 11...

[@lancervi1762]

@@DontAttme Oh, for sure. Good points all. Though, something about naval warfare makes it seem that analogy doesn't quite work here. Tanks can hide. Subs can hide. Capital ships and escorts, for all intents and purposes, today, cannot hide.

[@xaxaszaposznikow175]

To make onboard fire, after being hit, even greater

[@danialabdullah29]

I'm assuming when Russia developed a laser weapon, they'll slap a disco ball on their warship.

[@SaulMejia-ih2kx]

Disco ball: blows up the whole fleet

[@berserkxeptron4940]

😂😂

[@BungieStudios]

That will be the nuke of the future.

[@ded7vetrov]

it is already "peresvet"!

[@YunoGasaiMC2012]

That's literally Shin Godzilla, too overpowered and destructive to even exist.

[@gourmetbanana]

Russian Designer: How many guns do you want on this corvette? Putin: Yes!

[@GeneralRG]

Nice!

[@Electronic424]

Yes jokes still going on in 2021... Yes...

[@fujii_natsuooooo]

putin : how many gun do you have ?

[@museves]

@@fujii_natsuooooo manufucturer: we can put 15 putin: ok, n+1

[@christianjayfortuno2150]

I can hear it , AHH yes thrn Russian accent

[@coreyjacobs2718]

1 year later and the Slava class cruiser is sunk by just 2 subsonic missiles. Do Not bet bet on Russia

[@poisenbery]

Fun fact about VLS: A lot of ports will NOT allow boats to dock if they have VLS. I think this has something to do with their ease in striking land targets. I was stationed on the Jefferson City, USS 759. It was a submarine with VLS; we basically couldn't visit any foreign port because of this.

[@artembentsionov]

The reasons for arming them more heavily are pretty clear. The USSR simply couldn’t field an equivalent carrier-based navy, so they went with a cheaper alternative. Plus Khrushchev was firmly against the idea of big ships, claiming they were nothing but floating targets in the age of missiles

[@CosmicValkyrie]

Plus they don't even want to. All you have to do is deny sea access and us will have its panties in a twist.

[@robc4191]

@@CosmicValkyrie the US doesn need sea access. We can put a warhead anywhere on earth

[@Sairam_chintalapudi]

@@robc4191 so does Russia and China ...lol

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

@@robc4191 If you can put a warhead anywhere on the Earth, then what is the point of an aircraft carrier? To sit in the middle of the ocean and pee in the water?

[@leprechaunbutreallyjustamidget]

@@CosmicValkyrie right because they can deny sea access with their much smaller much older much less advanced navy 😂

[@thelovertunisia]

In effect the US Navy has become almost a floating airforce.

[@slatondragon]

It's the 2nd Largest Airforce in the world actually.

[@ajl1218]

@@slatondragon 2nd who the fuck has the first 😂

[@slatondragon]

@@ajl1218 The US Airforce

[@ajl1218]

@@slatondragon right I see what you did there I didn’t get that at first 😂 now I do 👋🏻

[@AGTheOSHAViolationsCounter]

@@ajl1218 And the third largest airforce is the USMC followed by I believe the Air National Guard although they would likely never be forward deployed as their main concern is homeland defense and support.

[@shawn97006]

The correct answer is to facilitate faster sinking via ammo cookoff. See Moskva.

[@calmc]

Did they ever think that stuffing all the weapons you can in a ship greatly increases the risk of getting ammo racked? They must be quite confident in their defenses and armor if that's the case.

[@celebrim1]

Japanese cruisers did the same thing, only to blow up catastrophically after being hit with 5in shells that on paper weren't a threat to their armor - because of all the explosive things they had on their decks.

[@Melanrick]

Well, the Russians use their navy with the idea that they will be fighting in the home front, meaning that any US Carrier Group would be outmatched in missiles, guns and aircraft. And they would be outmatched because its easier to mobilize 200 aircrafts from several airfields nearby than carry and operate all across the ocean. And then you add all the SAM batteries that they can muster near the border, all the ballistic missiles, submarines and etc. So it makes sense to pack everything there because even a big barrage of missiles have way more chance to be fully intercepted by Russian Navy then the other way around just because the sheer amount of missiles, radars and air defenses. And they are bound to lose ships in these kinds of situations anyway. It would take a single cruise missile to sink any ship on both sides anyway (and that includes US carriers *because* they carry a ungodly amount of fuel, missiles and flamable stuff all packed together, so one good hit and everything goes up in flames by secondary explosions and even if it doesnt sink, it will just become a giant ball of flame and we've seen the amount of damage that a electric fire alone can do on a ship, much less secondary explosions).

[@mzach2828]

@@Melanrick but us got the biggest Air Force and number 2 is the us navy. So us can send planes from literally everyone they control air and sea.

[@Melanrick]

@@mzach2828 But those airplanes would have to function in enemy's airspace. Not only that, but if manpads are doing that kind of damage in Russian airplanes, those S-400, S-500 will do the same to US planes. Couple that with all the other batteries, plus the AA from the ships, combined with air power, a aircraft carrier wing would have massive problems. Then there is the risk of losing those ships, etc. Air power alone doesn't win ears though. Afghanistan is a example of that.

[@mzach2828]

@@Melanrick yea but us got the most air power and the most sea power. So please tell me how russia would actually defeat the US I don’t think Russians really believe they can beat the us in a war as of yet.

[@strangeanimal490]

Russian : "Mine is bigger" American : "Mine is sexy" Canada : "Mine has a leak"

[@twerk_it_like_nae_nae7979]

Bruh

[@ZacLowing]

Ok Teal'c of Chulak A Serpent guard, a Horus guard and a Setesh guard meet on a neutral planet. It is a tense moment. The Serpent guard’s eyes glow. The Horus guard’s beak glistens. The Setesh guard’s nose drips.

[@charmingpeasant9834]

Canada : "Mine is gender neutral"

[@brokenmonitertheonly]

@@charmingpeasant9834 Carrier Pride Month

[@faleilham8334]

China : "Mine was Cheaper!!!!"

[@thespanishinquisition3744]

*Why russian ships are more heavily armed compared to the us?* Answer: Because Russia.

[@karltrimillos7955]

Yes he didn't even answered it I was waiting for it😂

[@adrianafamilymember6427]

@@karltrimillos7955 NOBODY WAS EXPECTING THE SPANISH INQUISITION.

[@pinngg6907]

Russian BIAS

[@bacon_noob6960]

y e s

[@mattmarzula]

More like because about 2/3 of their stuff doesn't work.

[@variableknife4702]

When they get to build the 60th+ one that works well it may be worth discussing. Until then - just note that the two navies aren't closely comparable. One is likely sufficient for defense deterrent, the other is capable of changing global policy by the mere idea that they might show up.

[@eduarddv00]

russia's geography doesnt exactly require their navy to field a blue water navy to be effective though. most of its conflicts are fought with its land neighbors. most of its strategic assets and complexes are located deep inland. even the cities that are situated on the coast are located within gulfs/bays/other highly strategic geographic regions which allow them to apply their bastion doctrine effectively. russia will not fight the us navy in the middle of pacific like the japanese. hence i dont really see how the us navy can overwhelm the russian navy in a war. though in a conventional war, the us air force will still completely inundate the russian defenses

[@georgeousthegorgeous]

wait till star fleet

[@holy3979]

@@eduarddv00 Exactly, it's a difference in naval doctrine and need.

[@fezzik5325]

Russia just lost its Black Sea flag ship, the Moskva, a few hours ago to a couple of Ukrainian Neptune missiles. To respond to your comment at the end of the video, I'd put my money on the Ukrainians...and they don't even really have a navy right now.

[@rafiqp8800]

And you are gullible enough to believe the fake Ukrainian propaganda that played you for a chump. How about that "Ghost of Kiev" story? All bullfeces propaganda to help keep your head in the sand.

[@sovietkrab1871]

ok

[@nofrackingzone7479]

The American naval fleet is massive which means ships rarely travel alone. The Russians on the other hand have a relatively small fleet and have to depend on themselves for protection.

[@holgerchristensen4021]

Relative to what? USA? Because Russia has a massive navy. They have many coast towards the sea therefor many of their ships are dispersed in smaller groups. Some of them can regroup and some of them can not (the baltic fleet).

[@Raptorftw]

@@holgerchristensen4021 Relative to the US yes. The context is US vs Russian naval doctrine. Not Russia vs Denmark or Norway for example.

[@holgerchristensen4021]

@@Raptorftw In term of size Russias navy is not far away from USAs navy.

[@Raptorftw]

@@holgerchristensen4021 Oh it absolutely is. Navies by tonnage: US: 3 415 893 Russia: 845,730

[@holgerchristensen4021]

@@Raptorftw In weigth yep. In numbers nope. USA 415 ships and Russia 352 ships. Normally I would also use the weight as a size of a navy, but it doesnt really tell what the navy is capable of. because a 1.500 tons swedish submarine can sink a gaurded 100.000 tons aircraft carrier.

[@Wolf-Nyan]

4:02 WHAT!? They put VLS cells in the bow runway? That’s f^cking genius

[@mrorlov2706]

Especially when your runway get hit by bomb

[@kbo8029]

@@mrorlov2706 or you can't use it because it's currently trying to fire while those enemy fighters are coming in pretty quickly.

[@Aldnon]

Imagine, just imagine, that place got hit by Kamikaze nutjob. I am thinking Russia is trying to repeat the design failure of Japanese carrier from WW2 they burn really easy.

[@DjDolHaus86]

@@kbo8029 It's ok, the Russians are notoriously terrible at carrier landings so having a missile tube open on deck is only marginally going to decrease the chances of a successful landing

[@is-3shchuka765]

@@mrorlov2706 no ship for enemy to take

[@rootkhan3254]

that was the most seamless transition into a promotion i ever seen 🤣 get that bread 💰

[@forfun6273]

I mean I’m just guessing. But if you think about ww2 when there were actually ship battles. The catastrophic damage was taken when the gun battery was hit. A simple 1,000 lb bomb didn’t do much damage. Now when it hit the 100 -500lb explosive shells then the whole ship went bye bye.

[@TheNinjaMarmot]

Russian: Lone wolf strategy. US: Wolf pack strategy.

[@repealsection230forbigtech4]

Well done: That Pretty much sums it up, except perhaps: Russian : Lone Siberian Tiger strategy USA: Wolf pack strategy.

[@sniperjared]

@@start3215 "russia destroyed the mongol empire" lol what historical revisionism are you smoking dude?

[@RandomYoutubeUser69]

@@start3215 "russia destroyed Ottoman Empire" lol what historical revisionism are you smoking dude?

[@RandomYoutubeUser69]

@@start3215 both have their own victory and defeat,but thats not the reason Ottoman Empire collapse i don't care if you are the number 1 fanboy of Russia grow up a little 👍.

[@RandomYoutubeUser69]

@@start3215 oh wow a drama of Catherine the great cool really put some effort in there with ofc Russian own version cool

[@cherrypoptart2001]

The kirov heavy battle cruiser literally looks like a star wars republic star destroyer floating on the water

[@herbb8547]

It looks tough, but looks can be deceiving. In reality, it would not stand a chance against a US destroyer.

[@frankrenda2519]

@@herbb8547 the kirov is light years ahead of anything in the us navy.the usa couldnt build anything close.

[@MrGreen-hr5cq]

Kirov reporting!

[@obiwankenobi3574]

@@frankrenda2519 bruh the thing is like 50 years old and is rusting

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

@@obiwankenobi3574 same as the most us ships mate, both nato and russia still uses mostly of 1980s modernized equipment

[@arctic_haze]

They have armed rocket launchers all around to make a better target for -Ukrainian Neptune missiles- drunk sailors smoking next to them.

[@thongdinhngo8337]

Heavily armed ship? More like a floating bomb

[@tgcnow]

When I served on a USN cruiser in the 1980s, the Combat Systems Officer was fond of saying, Our principal weapons systems is the F-16. Meaning the fighter jets from the carrier 50 or more miles away would be vectored by us to attack the enemy. Surface ships work with the carrier aircraft (and other aircraft, if available). It is not expected they will be out on their own in ship-to-ship duels. Also the video does not touch on the role of submarines. So far as the submarines are concerned, all those heavily-armed Russian (or Chinese) ships are just more targets.

[@joeblow9657]

Wouldn't that be an F-18?

[@petis1976]

@@joeblow9657 F-14's to defend the fleet, F/A-18's to attack.

[@wolfswinkel8906]

Goddamn, those Kirovs can take on a small nation's entire navy and air force themselves.

[@uroskostic8570]

Also Moscow cruiser. Massive 16 hyper anti ship. missiles. It doesnt need to sink it.

[@uss_04]

I can imagine those Kirov going back in time and destroying an entire fleet ala Axis of Time trilogy.

[@istvanmakra471]

Zum is an overpriced garbage.

[@projectmungo]

The true power of the US Navy is submerged. 😉

[@lolasdm6959]

@@projectmungo No, it's the carriers dummy.

[@suspiciousminds1750]

No matter how many weapons you jam on board, it doesn't do you much good if you can't leave the dock.

[@CovertCabal]

Haha

[@ragequitify]

Ooof

[@tomtdh4903]

So true!

[@mhelbertsalinas8532]

🤭

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

missles can be shor from drydock, but planes cannot be started without working catapult and here we got a winner XD

[@M67Fragment]

4:34 I WAS THERE FOR THAT, CG 54 Antietam its the cruiser closest to the camera. I have pictures from the stern. One of the only times they let the crew out on the weather decks during Photo Ops

[@AreeyaKKC]

Couldn't stop 2 ukranian missiles tho.. RIP. Moskva. 😆

[@huwfrancis9437]

0:45 can we not just skip over a shot of a boat being transported in a dry dock that’s on another boat?

[@official-fg7cq]

𝖭𝗂𝖼𝖾

[@banzeyegaming2234]

Eh. Lots of nations actually have those, they’ve been around since the Interwar Period.

[@sovietred7371]

They use it to protect the ship in transit to the ocean

[@edghety2560]

@@sovietred7371 that’s not true lol that’s a floating dock

[@KarlKarpfen]

You did lack one of the historically huge impacts on US-navy-designs: The ships need to operate across the Pacific, so the US-Navy did have rather long-range and therefore lightly armed ships.

[@JoeOvercoat]

America prefers to stow her weapons belowdecks, as well. We love our highly integrated solutions, for better or for worse. 🇺🇸

[@PurplePanda1233]

@@vashapeshka sorry we dont speak commie

[@jqbogus]

Slava class has a range of 5,600 km at 18 kts. Ticonderoga class has a range of 11,000km at 20 kts. Arleigh Burke class has a range of 8,100 km at 20 kts.

[@PurplePanda1233]

@@jqbogus what is that in freedom units?

[@zyxe-726]

@@PurplePanda1233 A simple km-to-miles converter will do you the trick.

[@captainobvious9233]

I always liked the designs of World War 2 Era Japanese Ships. Cold War Era Russian ships are my 2nd Favorite.

[@IrishPikeHunter]

The bigger they are the faster they sink!

[@PMI551]

I’ve been wondering this for a while

[@joeclaridy]

I've always assumed because it was because the Russian Navy is trying to do more with less.

[@sloppydog4831]

I've wondered it my entire life. But Covert Cabal answered what I imagined to be: difference in doctrine.

[@carlosdomingo1453]

@@joeclaridy modern warfare. Less cost with heavy bang

[@rl8571]

America was the first with VLS, IFF, CIWS and a system like Aegis. Russia used the outgun approach as a counter. Unfortunately today, the world has caught up. Russia has the same tech today while keeping the outgun philosophy. Simply put, yes it is a difference in doctrine but now Russia has the same tech on top of it and China is not far behind.

[@carlosdomingo1453]

@@rl8571 Russia military hardware are 80% cheaper than the US

[@royaltyallen1162]

Soon as I heard Kirov Class, "Kirov Reporting" ;')

[@arielsegieda4209]

we are so old...

[@someguy5035]

I still play RA 3. I played it today even.

[@johndexterzarate6663]

....Allies: "Aegis Reporting!"

[@doodskie999]

@@someguy5035 RA2 was the real deal, how old are you 14? RA3 is garbage

[@someguy5035]

@@doodskie999 Cool projection. Your kind always tells on themselves.

[@dreamybuilder]

News around the world: “Russian aggression” Covert Cable: “US navy is much more offensive while Russian navy focuses more on defense” Great material

[@kerbodynamicx472]

China and Russia trying to defend themselves from US CSGs Western media: The rise of Chinese/Russian aggression

[@NoOnesBCE]

I mean some, some, Russia has made some small territorial gains trough warfare in the last decade

[@silvers2211]

Is Mobility a factor? I got no knowledge on these certain areas.

[@kerbodynamicx472]

@RKPuram yep, there were once a bit of border conflict between China and Soviet Union…

[@verbotn]

This hasn't aged well, explain the massed Russian troops at Ukraine's border? I wonder what nonsense propaganda those troops have been fed to convince them they're not aggressors but are doing something righteous?

[@TheJoeSwanon]

As soon as any conflict became “hot“ it’s almost always going to take one shot one kill

[@cassideyousley406]

I've never been in the military myself, but I love learning about it. Please never stop making these videos. Civilians like myself need insight into this world.

[@collguyjoe99]

Soviet Navy: Nothing will defeat us Pepsi : has entered the game.......

[@craigross9921]

Probably lost on most of the idiot gamer kids commenting.

[@shaggybottomtext8363]

I laughed more then I should’ve

[@Querens]

lol, how pepsi is involved?

[@collguyjoe99]

@@Querens In the late 1980s, Russia's initial agreement to serve Pepsi in their country was about to expire, but this time, their vodka wasn't going to be enough to cover the cost. So, the Russians did what any country would do in desperate times: They traded Pepsi a fleet of subs and boats for a whole lot of soda. The new agreement included 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer.

[@Querens]

@@collguyjoe99 lol, I didn't know anything like that. Will try to find some info about it. Obviously they wouldn't put anything like that on air. Well, in the late 80-s USSR was already colapsing due to its born dead economy so I'm not surprised.

[@matthewdancz9152]

A conventional war between Russia and the US would be terrifying, but a simulated conventional war between Russia and the US would be hella fun.

[@humphrey09applebee61]

US Ticonderoga Class carries 122 VLCs typically 80 SM2 and at least 26 Tomahawks, while it is outgunned by the Kirov which is almost 3 times the displacement, it gives the Slava and others a run for the money. The Arleigh Burke carries 96 VLCs and therefore carries more "big missiles" than its direct Russian competitor. What Russian ships indeed do have is a much heavier CIWS starting from the small missile boat to the big Kirov class which has either 8 Phalanx type guns or 6 more sophisticated Kashtan hybrid gun missile systems. Most western ships have 2 tops Phalanx oder RIM type CIWS, US aircraft carriers carry some more but the brand new Queen Elisabeth class British carrier carries just 3 Phalanx and no other defense missiles.

[@S0ulinth3machin3]

those comparisons are relevant for blue water operations. If we have to project power onto a coastline, I don't see how a big, juicy target like a carrier will be able to fend off the very large amount of missiles which will be able to be fired from land. We need to diversify. Keep some of the carriers for blue water ops, but against coastlines vs. major industrial powers, drone carriers should be stealth ships or even stealth submarines.

[@ikrarramadhan6960]

US ships has COD inventory, while Russian has GTA inventory.

[@GabrielCCCP]

The Kirov battlecruiser is a true masterpiece. What a beautiful ship...

[@typhoon8711]

Yep the only missile cruiser that can carry nuclear warheads

[@typhoon8711]

That ship is the yamato of 2021

[@_abk_3251]

**Obama giving medal to Obama meme**

[@keralius]

@@_abk_3251 exactly my thoughts :D

[@greatunclestroller7179]

The only problem is that kirov is a big target imo

[@RyanBowie1]

Love the clip of good ole BB-62 at 0:17 😁

[@f4ust85]

Theres also the doctrine going on since mid-WW2 when the Soviets always answered enemy armament by adding slightly bigger calibre to their prototypes - whenever Germans (and later NATO) came with a tank or an aircraft, the Soviets instantly came back with a model that had slightly bigger firepower.

[@nenadmitrovic3469]

T34?

[@randomt-9034]

Ah yes, it feels like this: *Adds Katyusha to a ship 📈Navy

[@INSANESUICIDE]

The reason is the same as with a lot of Russian construction philosophy, it is not the best let's just make it hit hard and cheap. It has worked with varied success throughout history

[@tonimalum346]

russian tech is build to last

[@andrewdoesyt7787]

@@tonimalum346 no its not at all lol. It’s cheap and easy. It’s not good compared to other forces.

[@nolianpazac8440]

You are watching Covert Caban and yet you didn't learn anything. Still regurgitating the stupid shit learned from Hollywood propaganda.

[@alalducente]

@@tonimalum346 if its tech being "build to last" doesnt make sense.

[@saltmerchant749]

@@tonimalum346 No, it really isn't. In terms of their ships, they catch fire and sink by themselves with alarming regularity.

[@ericschlebus6488]

The basic lesson of naval warfare was changed forever when the Japanese sunk the Repulse and Prince of Wales during WW2: Naval Aviation is superior to any surface ship, regardless of how well armed they are. The Russian Battlecruisers would stand no chance against a carrier strike group, which is what it would have to face from long range. Sure it would likely shoot down some planes and American missiles, but it could not survive a swarm. As soon as it gets hit once or twice, critical systems will start going down and it will be over. That is the reality of why Americans have different doctrine.

[@iainansell5930]

....and subs are better at killing ships than another ship...

[@Ryan_Christopher]

And that is why Russian Battlecruisers still carry Nuclear Anti-ship missiles while the US Navy puts its faith on stealthy F-35s to get the job done. In either case whomever is quicker to the draw will win.

[@michaelbuckers]

Even if half of your weapons fail, having 10x more of them to begin with means you've still got 5x more firepower left than the enemy ever had.

[@ironpatriot6053]

yeah and before sinking they have one last 10 extra kaboom for launching xD

[@robertagren9360]

This concept been going on since the medieval age.The ship is nothing but a symbol of power. The one who could put the most guns on the ship had the power of the sea. Even pirates used this doctrine by putting extra guns on already overloaded ships.

[@MrWolfheart111]

Not if your enemy is surrounded with guns. Guns that only need little maintenance. Onshore and covered.

[@michaelbuckers]

@@robertagren9360 These walls of guns on medieval ships make perfect sense when you consider the amount of time it takes to reload one of those.

[@BV-fr8bf]

Depends where you look. The US Navy largest conventionally armed, missiles carrying vessels are deployed underwater. Ohio class SSGNs can carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles + Harpoon missiles.

[@ceaschannle5752]

Ohio being only exception. Russian subs carry quite a bit as well.... in Russia they even call them heavy missile cruisers. www.hisutton.com/World-Submarine-Ranking-Weapons-Load.html

[@BV-fr8bf]

​@@ceaschannle5752Yasen class carries 41% of the Ohio SSGN capacity. From a former submariner (link below), Soviet/Russian subs lost stealth due to high automation and *failure to maintain.* Soviet/Russian nuclear reactor accident rate is *significantly* higher. They lost *many* operational subs. kzbin.info/door/9bMgCQyFNaMPsK9GtzM5dQ

[@TonboIV]

@@BV-fr8bf The Yasen carries considerably larger and faster missiles though. The Ohio SSGN isn't really an optimal design. Ideally, many of the Tomahawks would be replaced by fewer, larger missiles, but the U.S. has been somewhat neglecting cruise missile development for decades, and the only thing they had to arm the Ohio with was the Tomahawk, so they just put in lots and lots of them.

[@simwilliams5358]

@@BV-fr8bf yes like the Kursk

[@shamrock3957]

@@TonboIV the larger the missile the easier to shoot it out of the sky, especially once the laser weapons come online in full. Ideally you'd have many smaller missiles that travel at high speed to overwhelm missile defenses. Saturation attacks for missiles will eventually be the only effective means. Which is why you're seeing U.S. and China investing heavily in laser weapons and Railguns. Both, once operational and having the bugs worked out, will be far more cost effective than a multi-million dollar missile that can be shot out of the sky.

[@The_Viscount]

1v1 battles are fun for thought experiments, but, in war time, you won't find an arleigh Burke operating alone.

[@joskethegreat4154]

Basically tiger vs lion, except a lion is never alone.

[@conductingintomfoolery9163]

Plus the f-35b, also the vast amount of attack subs with stealth missiles

[@Evertruth28]

@@conductingintomfoolery9163right USA stealth Nuclear Subs are the most potent weapons on the seas!

[@conductingintomfoolery9163]

@@Evertruth28 not just sea but ever

[@nogisonoko5409]

Nor you will find Russian warships alone. They will definitely move in group to increase the probability their ASMs salvos will saturate Carrier strike group defenses and reach the carrier.

[@markcutie9959]

This aged like milk hahaha haha

[@urieaaron]

The Ukrainians may have just proved you might want to hold up on putting your money on the Russians. Maybe a bunch of smaller ships instead of one bigger ship is better in this day and age.

[@rifroll1117]

I once saw the Admiral Pantaleyev IRL and was astounded by the how aggressive it looked compared to the frigates my country uses. 2 main guns, huge missile tubes and circular ASW rocket launchers all of which were clearly visible from 2 miles out. Made me think about this very topic

[@okaunis]

If looking aggressive matters they would use artists to design weapons. :)

[@threethrushes]

Bark is worse than it's bite.

[@overlord4404]

@@threethrushes its bite is thor missile system, so no its bite is a lot worse

[@JohnSmith-fd5un]

@@threethrushes The bark is enough to scare off the whelps.

[@bighands69]

The US has a completely different set of capabilities when it comes to its navy.

[@badendhappy2903]

Russian Engineers: How many weapons you want on this thing? Russian Admiral: YES!

[@thePronto]

Because Russian Navy can't join May Day Parade.

[@davemccombs]

There's always someone just copy/pasting other joke formats for attention

[@thePronto]

@@davemccombs funny how comments with the word 'Russian' in them *always* get a negative response from the bot farm.

[@user-lz1yb6qk3f]

It's actually how it works. No matter what alien technology you have you can't fulfill requirements of the army/navy. They always want more.

[@michaellewellyn9080]

@@user-lz1yb6qk3f maybe not make ship out of aluminum foil.

[@wausa7132]

You'd lose that money. The cruiser Moskva didn't even detect the missiles coming at it. All the point defenses aboard were in their stowed configuration. Russia is stuck somewhere between WW1 and my dog's latest dump.

[@zachariasvan3965]

Now we know. This makes them a sitting duck when they are hot by some missile. Thanks Russia to help Ukraine with this.

[@roderickcampbell2105]

I think you're correct in short analysis. Role and doctrine are different and for good reasons. Also budget. The USA has global reach and needs a very large budget and can achieve much of what is requires. Russia must compromise and will try to get the "best bang for it's buck".

[@hallo0hoi]

'The USA has global reach' -> this also means ships need more space for fuel, provisions and other ship things, so less space to cram missile in. Range and the option to easily operate far away from (home) ports also costs space.

[@jamesricker3997]

American warships also carry more reloads The Russian ships and crews are considered expendable. Directions believe in probably correctly didn't if they don't kill the enemy with the first strike they are dead

[@threethrushes]

Probably doesn't help that Putin and his army of hangers-on siphons off hundreds of billions of dollars per annum from public funds. Imagine what a superpower Russia could be if it was not run by corrupt officials. That's why corruption is good!

[@p51mustang24]

There are similar doctrinal differences in the air, where Russia see's less need for stealth as they would expect to operate aircraft defensively in conjunction with ground based radars and weapons systems, while the US expects to operate offensively in red airspace. Offensive doctrine is inherently more expensive, providing Russia the possibility of defending itself successfully on a much smaller budget.

[@elseggs6504]

@@threethrushes imagine how much good america could do if its corruption wouldnt run this deep. The military industrial complex has been a hindrance towards peace for decades

[@lineoflads1388]

8:13 I’m sorry but that is just too badass!

[@grobbs666]

The rail missiles do look awesome, but they are outdated. US ships use to have them, even the early Ticonderoga cruisers had them. All replaced with VLS which can fire a lot faster and other reasons he mentions

[@dreamingflurry2729]

Two words: Saturation Attack! Russia in a (hypothetical) war against the US would have to overwhelm carrier groups (who have layered air defenses via the Aegis-System), which is only possible by well throwing a boat load of missiles at them (so hundreds at best!) to make sure some get through!

[@sirius_solaris]

"the years of the battleship are no more due to the arrival of aircraft carriers" _Pyotr Velikiy would like to know your location_

[@proto718]

Make love, not war, be prepared for both.

[@gripen6512]

@Antun Šturlić you can't fighting while fucking

[@den-iq1cv]

So both country should exchange hookers?

[@tomf3150]

@Antun Šturlić AH AH AH AH !

[@KHETTIUS]

correction, large capital class ships died out because of CVs, not missiles.

[@KHETTIUS]

@William Hendrix missiles had nothing to do with it, projection of airpower was the sole reason, a squadron of naval aircraft cost a fraction of the resources necessary to build a battleship, while the CV itself never directly engaged an enemy vessel while a BB had to directly do exactly that. the maturation of military aircraft is the single biggest change to modern warfare, and this was realized during WW2.

[@thunderboltcougar5626]

Hmmmm i agree with u but what william said also true anyway. It's both the cv and missiles that end the bb's career. Yes, cv's deterrent power comes from their attack aircrafts. However their aircraft's qualities are determined by their avionics &.. air to surface missile technologies. The same goes w/ surface to surface missiles, especially when attack aircraft weren't available or air strike mission weren't possible on the area due to several reason, such as a heavily defended anti air area, thus surface to surface missile is most reliable & viable method for the situation.

[@KHETTIUS]

@@thunderboltcougar5626 dude you are talking about modern tech, battleships died out long before that during an era when things like guided missiles were in their infancy and actually posed little threat if any at all, massed formations of aircraft swarming a massive target like a battleships , armed with bombs designed to pen deck armor is what ended the era of battleships, missiles don't come into it at all.

[@joaomiguelmoreira6363]

On ww2

[@shlee2161]

When I was a ROK navy officer, I asked same question to Russian navy lieutenant on Admiral Tributs. And he said "Big missiles, Big power"

[@stephenbrand5661]

It's amazing how Pootin's "special" operation has managed to massively embarrass every wing of the Russian military!! 😂

[@sovietkrab1871]

lmau

[@sindhepandurang118]

USA: Battleship got missiles. In Putin's Russia: Missles got battleship.

[@robc4191]

IF the ship is still operational, IF the missile actually works, IF the ship can get to open waters to pursue the US ship...

[@AndreiTsiolis]

@@robc4191 They dont chase tho, US come not the other way around, they operate wherever while russians just guard their own, says enough.

[@robc4191]

@@AndreiTsiolis yes. It says putin hasnt made enought money off ransomeware attacks on US and European businesses to put coal in his boats yet.

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

@@robc4191 How old are you? Twelve? If you are over 12 then, judging by your comments, your IQ is twelve!

[@banana9056]

@@jerromedrakejr9332 He's not wrong, Putin isn't the great man like the internet thinks, he's an brutal dictator. Not even near democratic. You would have known this if you had seen the Russian protests. Literally allows himself to be bribed by Russian billionaires. People in the internet only support him because of his crazy photographs.

[@2020Max1]

Honestly the primary reason is that Russia knew that they could never match the industrial output of the US when it came to naval ships while also attempting to maintain a formidable ground combat force. So they focused on 2 things. The first was a large air force that was capable (in theory) of overwhelming a CVBG's air defense, and the second was knowing that they were going to be at a 4 or 5 to one disadvantage in surface combatants they focused on packing as much firepower into what ships they had. Again focusing primarily on a surface to surface capability to supplement their air force. And No, I don't have a degree in Defense and Strategic Studies from West Point, but I did spend some of min time in the US Navy studying Russian Cold War and Post Cold War naval doctrine and tactics.

[@jayus2033]

I actually built the first battleship During the Cold War era. And I think I remember you in the Cold War.

[@julianraiders1112]

russia doesnt have a large airforce

[@Elthenar]

The main reason is that Russia didn't truly need much of a Navy, aside from their subs. They needed subs to counter our nuclear triad and form their own, otherwise they didn't have a lot to gain. Their surface Navy really only existed to protect their own shores, they did not need to project force like the US did. Offensively, everywhere the would need to attack with conventional forces they could simply gas up the tanks and trucks then drive there. By comparison, the US has to cross oceans to get to any potential fight. So we had very different needs from our respective navies.

[@2020Max1]

@@julianraiders1112 They don't anymore but in the '70s, '80s, and early '90s their airforce rivaled that of the United States. They needed an airforce large enough to contest the US in the GIUK gap. They couldn't rely on just their subs because the US's advancements in ASW assured that they'd be of limited use against a CVBG. They instead relied on an overwhelming coordinated missile strike delivered by their Navy, and Airforce.

[@2020Max1]

@@Elthenar Well said. They had 2 completely different strategic doctrines based on their geographic situations. Each of those doctrines also included provisions for countering their geopolitical rival.

[@JoeOvercoat]

An excellent analysis.

[@ravener96]

Even with VLS, the russians really do be carrying a large volume of missiles.

[@lolololfoo3775]

Designer: what weapons should we put on our ships The Russians: It’s not what kind but how many

[@IndraJayaGroup]

Plot twist : Russian ships actually use land mine on the deck to protect the ship from infantry attack

[@Jumptownwore]

..... And kamikaze pilots;)

[@KLP368]

🤣😂🤣 thats funny

[@zebradun7407]

Most are almost 40 years old, Soviet Cold War era Sea Monsters designed to fight an old war that never happened. Currently they have sortied for the Ukraine event, this will probably be the last time these old ships deploy.

[@Steve-dr7rr]

With all that firepower something must work Ivan

[@Bored_Kaga]

lots of missiles and guns: *tightly packed onto a ship* AP shells: Hey wanna recreate May 24 1941 HMS Hood?

[@alexmaddox8307]

That wad stoopid

[@chiisan3776]

Good Idea, Let Us Go Fellow Shikikan _scoots away_

[@xmeda]

Yeah lets welcome daring enemy ship by barrage of P-700 Granit missiles with 400km+ range designed to sink aircraft carrier by one hit..

[@Kav.]

Good luck getting your gun in range. Also I'll just point out, modern ammunition storage systems for ships have come a long way since Hood. So even if we say a missile hits it's of limited use in that regard.

[@Bored_Kaga]

@@Kav. My point in making that comment was that if one of those weapons *does* blow up, it's likely to take the rest of the ship with it

[@USSR.T-90A]

"you see Ivan, if we put shit tonnes of weapon in our ships, we wouldn't miss the target! Right?" "Da Boris, let's do the same thing with helicopters, tanks and Fighter jets."

[@SpicierTaco]

U.S. Navy: " lets be smart about weapon placement....logisitics come first!" Russian Federation Navy: Доставьте на корабль больше оружия, Алекси!

[@madness1383]

a us carrier strike group can safely sit back outside the effective range of the russian navy and launch 5th generation stealth jets to sink them. that's exactly how it went in world war 2 in the pacific theatre you can look it up, a carrier dominated the initiative on the ocean.

[@abissuminvocat]

The aircraft carrier group is clearly visible from satellites. Several attack submarines with anti-ship missiles can intercept ships along the route.