The Russian battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy

File: tarkr-petr-velikij_6_src[1].jpg (137KB, 1100x743px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1100x743px

Look at this thing. That is quite a load.

>>31897496

It's meant for deterring/hunting carrier groups. The fact that it is partially nuclear-powered means that it can hunt for a CVN without worrying about running out of fuel. It has enough surface-to-air missiles onboard to resist an attack by a carrier airwing for some time and it has a large supply of offensive supersonic anti-ship missiles capable of destroying a carrier in 1 hit.

Of course, that's the idea. In reality, these ships are very outdated in terms of the technology onboard and Russia does not have much spare cash for upgrades. It's impossible to know how it would actually fare against a carrier group today, but may guess is that it would not be pretty for the Kirov. The US Navy has had decades to build countermeasures against Kirovs. For a Kirov to get into a position to actually deliver a missile to a carrier, it would have to penetrate a defensive ring of submarines, destroyers, and aircraft before it would even get a chance to fire.

>>31897556
>capable of destroying a carrier in 1 hit

Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

>>31897578

Do you think that a carrier would be able to survive a Granit hit?

Basically this

>War with the HATO
>Baltics closed m8s
>Roll out a pair of Kirovs, 4 Sovermennys, 4 Udaloy-IIs, associated Frigates, subs ect
>Force the Bosporus and hold
>Protect the arctic sea
>NATO tries to push the Baltic
>Spam fuckhueg missiles and AA
>No, really, Baltics closed

The Kirov was part of the Soviet Fleets strategic defense of relatively tight, relatively controlled bodies of water around its operational theater. It was a floating SAM base if there ever was one, plus the ability to fire impressively large missiles at land and sea-based targets. Working with their proposed fleets, the would have handily been able to lock down places like the Baltic, Black Sea, and protect the North. They were never really going to roll out to sea and attempt to engage the USN on equal terms, because Russia was never going to be able to have an equal term with the West at sea outside of the continental European waters, mostly to secure their gains.

>>31897496
>What did Russia mean by this
To be badass

>>31897588
A single Granit? Yes.

Any functionality lost depends on the impact location.

>>31897594
>No, really, Baltics closed

Replace this with sinking in a blaze of glory.

>>31897556
Well you said so yourself it can deter an airwing for a suitable amount of time.

So assuming it can deal with that, what capabilities would it have against destroyers and subs.

Assuming it is charging against a carrier group by itself in this scenario.

>>31897891

>Well you said so yourself it can deter an airwing for a suitable amount of time.

I said that was the idea. I didn't say that it could measure up to the idea. Despite being smaller, it is very likely that the Burke destroyers are much more effective at "clearing the air."

>>31897496
I wonder if Russia will abandon them for good once they get the new destroyers.

>>31897625

>people here will say a carrier can survive the biggest AShM ever while saying a harpoon will sink an Iowa

IIRC a Nimitz can handle a school bus sized hole beneath the waterline.

>>31897496
What kind of radars does it have and how many missiles could it guide simultaneously?

Does it need illuminators for terminal guidence to it's missiles? If so, how many could it guide?

>>31897594

they were designed to slug it out with a U.S carrier group, and have plenty of missiles on board to do it.

>>31898026

>double-digit defense budget cuts next year
No new destroyers are coming fimfam.

>>31897578
The missiles can carry nuclear warheads, and they have no reason to use anything less if they're trying to sink a carrier.

>>31897505
Sitting in that little conning tower with a large amount of cigarettes, some hidden wodka and a comfy chair with that ugly as sin 80's fabric would be a nice deployment. Shame you still have to eat the Russian food.

File: Admiral Ruskov.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>31897496
If you don't do as I say, you and your crew will leave this harbor atop a mushroom cloud. You saw what happened to France. You know what my ship is capable of.

>>31898300
I doubt they would of laid any DDGs down in the next 5 years, budget cuts or not. More 22350s (or some modification of it) would of been far more likely.

>>31898288
That was really never the Soviet Navy goal, at least not in the open sea. Destruction of the USCGs was a Submarine or Naval Aviation task, at least in open ocean, far more than it was the Soviet Navies.

The whole doctrine was about axis denial and destruction of REFORGER units. The Soviets never needed to project power across an ocean, they had only to consolidate power in their massive land area.

The Kirov class was designed to do just that. They had the ability to be part of the SNs Seagoing fleet, if they ever got to build what the loftiest hopes of the Navy was, but otherwise they never had many ambitions of gigantic fleet on fleet battles in the Atlantic, and the Kirov was to be a way to protect the control of the sea.

Yes the P-700 is a gigantic missile, and is certainly capable of killing a carrier, but most of Russia's missiles from the start have been gigantic, and there's more reasons other than just carrier sinking.

>>31897578
>>31897625
The usual tactic is to launch them in a swarm. So there won't be just 1 (that even the CIWS could easily deal with). And if there's ever a need and a will to use them I don't think they'll be carrying anything other than the nuclear charge.

>>31898198
>harpoon can sink an Iowa
Who says that kind of shit?

>>31898624
People who argue against gun battleship faggots

>>31898660
>gun battleship faggots
Worse than A-10 worshipers

In my opinion, the Kirov shows the limitations of Russian SAM. It has 1 S-300 Search Radar and 2 S-300 Guidance/Illumination Radar. Other ships only need 1 Guidance Radar but it needs 2. Topkek.


Also, the refit of the Nakhimov shows the dire situation of Russia, why would you need 224 Surface to Air Missiles with surface attack capability and 80 anti ship missiles? Are you compensating for something? Oh yes, Height.

>>31898701
>It has 1 S-300 Search Radar
They are general 3D air search, and there are two of them.
>Other ships only need 1 Guidance Radar but it needs 2.
???
With twice the FCRs you can guide twice as many missiles...

>>31898708

I don't know shit about boats, but its be shame to have this big ass ship with a million missiles and xaxaxa ops radar is malfunction)) or it gets damaged.

Now all those missiles are usless.

File: tumblr_inline_myu0khwhnS1qlrx1d.jpg (49KB, 500x299px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x299px

>>31898837

>>31898855

What did I say that warrants this may may

>>31898837
>I don't know shit about boats
Thats kinda obvious from what you write. Protip: Burke has 2 AN/SPS-67 too.

>>31898876

>more than one radar is a good thing
>"lol ur dumb"

Ok.

>>31898885
I am pretty sure you said a completely different thing. Another protip: ships have several radars of the same type for reasons completely unrelated to redundancy.

>>31898891

The guy said "lol wow Russians need two radars, that means their SAMs are shit.''

All I said was having multiple radars is a good thing.

>>31898708
Oh look someone's saying they know Russian stuff.

Must be a vatnik.

>>31898300
>>31898376
The navy and the airforce got most of the funds for the earlier years of SAP, now its the ground forces turn for massive recapitalization its equipment stock.

>>31898701
with electronic steering it can provide midcourse updates and illuminate targets by the hundreds per second.

>>31898855
>>31898876
>>31898898
Wow you guys are being retarded today. His point was that putting all of your missiles on one huge ship rather than several smaller ships makes you more vulnerable to that ship being mission killed. The specific number of radars on said ship is irrelevant.

>>31898696
Still not as bad as gavinfags and gliderfags.

>>31899053
>putting all of your missiles on one huge ship
What is the correct size?
Let me guess, ~10,000t and ~100 missiles. Does the same logic apply to carriers?

>>31898660
I've spent an ungodly amount of time on those threads (Christ, I need help). The actual argument is that a single Harpoon/ASM can potentially fuck up a battleship enough to render it effectively useless (because you can't armor comms, radar and other sensitive systems employed in modern warfare), just like any other ship.

It's a effort for a single ship alpha strike capable of killing/damaging a carrier. It's a sea control deterrent. As long as it's out and about you can't really say you have sea control. It combat it's supposed to go out in a blaze of glory in a worse case but what ever it encounters hopefully will remember it. It probably needs some(lots) updating.

It's a dakka machine, think Macross Missile Massacre in real life. It would have to survive to get into a firing position which might be tough since it's older tech.

It gives some strategic force projection. It potentially could be a sea raider from hell (nuclear powered)(think "sink the Bismark" on steroids). If it did not force engagements and tried to stay alive (and was successful) it could make a lot of enemy ships/subs stay occupied chasing rather than offensive ops. Downside is apparently for modern ships it's extremely high signature. SOSUS can track this thing over a ocean.

>>31899053
Its called real estate. A big ship can carry big radars that small ships cannot carry.

>>31899167
>It combat it's supposed to go out in a blaze of glory in a worse case but what ever it encounters hopefully will remember it.

I guess the sub captain will remember it allright, what with them being the third one to actually sink a ship since WWII ended.

File: 1144 pyotr velikiy & 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov & 1164 marshal ustinov.jpg (135KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1024x768px

>>31899283
Not agreeing with him or anything, but Slava carries the same radars at less than a half of Kirov's displacement.

>>31899099

The question on what is the ideal size for a carrier is certainly an open question (and the USA's decision to exclusively use super-carriers is dubious since there are so many smaller conflicts), however, missiles and aircraft aren't really comparable.

There is no real increase in efficiency of number of missiles beyond a point. however for a carrier, an increase in size brings benefits. More diverse air wing & weapons (F/A-18, E/A-18, E-2C, C-2A, MH-60R, MH-60S), and more sorties per day, with bigger aircraft, nuclear reactors make more sense at a large size.

In short a 100k ton carrier is far more than twice as powerful as a 50k ton carrier, but a 200 missile ship isn't twice as powerful as a 100 missile ship.

>>31899312
>100k ton carrier is far more than twice as powerful as a 50k ton carrier
And how is that? 100k ton Nimitz can carry 70 fighters and at this point its deck will be so loaded it won't be able to both launch and receive aircraft at the same time. 50k ton Kuznetsov can carry 35 to 41 fighters in the same manner while still being able to launch and receive aircraft at the same time.
>200 missile ship isn't twice as powerful as a 100 missile ship
It literally is, especially knowing that a 200 missile ship houses more radars hence being more powerful in the actually relevant sense of being able to actually put more missiles in use simultaneously.

>>31899312
Except thats not true at all, US used more than just supercarriers.

>>31899397
>50k ton Kuznetsov can carry 35 to 41 fighters in the same manner while still being able to launch and receive aircraft at the same time.

If theoretical max is the metric, the Nimtz can carry 110 F-18s, launch and recover.

File: 14771658992503.jpg (74KB, 879x545px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 879x545px

>>31899418
>the Nimtz can carry 110 F-18
70 is borderline operational.

>>31899397
>50k ton Kuznetsov can carry 35 to 41 fighters
> while still being able to launch and receive aircraft at the same time.

ohh boy

i am sure that's why it never carrier more than 20 fighter at the same time...

>>31899424
Wrong.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98001.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwii8fLUqI_QAhWoxFQKHW70D78QFggXMAU&usg=AFQjCNEpA2yROOrfG8gz0YANjTf1PyTKVQ

Page 23.

I was wrong, it was 130.

>>31899432
It is a purely theoretical amount of space on the entire carrier measured in F-18s. A Nimitz carrying 130 aircraft will functionally be a cargo ship, not an aircraft carrier.

>>31899427
It has to do with the excessive amount of helicopters and the lack of operational aircraft. I am talking about how much it can carry and still be operational, not about some doctrinal differences. Go shitpost elsewhere.

>>31899140
A single missile that actually hits, that is. If the battleships' countermeasures are good enough, they could likely survive having multiple missiles fired at them.

>>31899410
>used
Not any more though. All our true carriers are supercarriers.

File: tmp_5353-Screenshot_2016-11-04-09-59-31-2034116014.png (672KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1080x1920px

>>31899450
That again, is false. The number is the amount of aircraft the carrier can carry and still carry out functions.

See pic.

This is where you admit you were wrong.

>>31897505
that's what she said

>>31899566
The pic literally proves I am right, same as the pic I posted. It is about 70 operational.

>>31899309
Which radars?

>>31899618
Ahh, but anon we are talking max load.

>>31899618
The pic proves you directly wrong if we are talking operational.

16 fighters (12+4 trainers) vs 50 fighters, standard operational load.

Future is 24 vs 50, and the nimtiz has far more assets.

>>31899647
We are talking about how many aircraft a carrier can house and still be operational relative to its size.
>>31899678
What the fuck are you even talking about?

>>31899694
>We are talking about how many aircraft a carrier can house and still be operational relative to its size.

Ok, and that number for the nimtiz is 130 F-18 sized airframes.

>>31899620
3D search radars, SA-N-4 and SA-N-6 fire control radars, variable depth sonars.

>>31899694
>What the fuck are you even talking about?

Current operational loads? If your talking about max then it seems to be 130 fighters.

>>31899697
No, it is not. 70 aircraft is its borderline operational loadout. Both my and your pics prove that.

>>31899709
>Current operational loads?
Of what? I am comparing carrier sizes, not specific ships, and Kuznetsov and Nimitz just happen to be of fitting displacement. Call them Carrier-A and Carrier-B for all I care.

File: tmp_8579-2016-11-04 10.28.48-1656492757.png (899KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 1080x1920px

>>31899714
>. 70 aircraft is its borderline operational loadout

70 aircraft is the nominal loadout.

130 is the max.

You need me to circle where it says the carrier is operational with 130?

There you go.

>>31899714
It litterally says 74 aircraft is the STANDARD composition. Nothing about boarderline.

Hell, it DIRECTLY says 45-50 on the deck is OPTIMAL.

>>31899747
I'm not arguing that in can theoretically carry 130 aircraft, I am saying that with 130 aircraft on board it will functionally be a cargo ship, as 70 is its borderline operational loadout, as it is confirmed by both my and your pics.

>>31899766
>I am saying that with 130 aircraft on board it will functionally be a cargo ship

And the source directly contradicts this, and states " an aircraft carrier capacity for carrying aircraft is expressed as an aircraft carrier maximum density. Maximum density takes into account the space on the hanger and Flight Deck does the aircraft and helicopters in the air we need as well as space for other items..."

>>31899759
Now look back at the pic of the actual pre-launch spotting pattern that proves that with 70 or about 70 aircraft it can't launch and receive aircraft at the same time. Hence it is borderline operational.

>>31899776
>an aircraft carrier capacity for carrying aircraft is expressed as an aircraft carrier maximum density. Maximum density takes into account the space on the hanger and Flight Deck that the aircraft and helicopters in the air wing need as well as space for other items..."

Fixed.

>>31899776
This quote literally proves what I am saying.

>>31899778
It only needs to launch the first go aircraft, you idiot. What aircraft needs to be recovered when no aircraft is in the air?

Furthermore, thats just the deck, not the hanger.

>>31899794
So we are in agreement that 130 aircraft is the maximum density for a carrier to conduct operations? Because thats directly what it says.

>>31899795
Pretty much anything in this area.

File: fdab2885b681a9730b07087f0999cf15.png (628KB, 1280x620px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1280x620px

>>31899795
>hanger

>>31899808

What? Why would an carrier need recover aircraft when its at full deckload? If its from another carrier the pilot would be told to fuck off, thats not their carrier, we are full. If its from land, the pilot would be told to fuck off, just fuck off.

File: 1478269949069.jpg (130KB, 879x545px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 879x545px

>>31899800
It says nothing about operations. On the contrary, it says that it takes in consideration the space for about every item other than aircraft, "such as boats, boat skids, aircraft ground support equipment, forklifts, cranes, and aircraft jacks". Once again, look at the actual pre-launch spotting pattern and tell me where you are going to fit another 60 aircraft in order for it to remain anything other but a cargo vessel.
>>31899808
Forgot the pic.

>>31899747
From this i get that maximum 47-50 aircrafts can be on the flight deck while still the carrier still can be conduct takeoff and landings. How many can you have in the hang bay?

>>31899842
>It says nothing about operations.

>>"Maximum density takes into account the space on the hanger and Flight Deck that the aircraft and helicopters in the air wing need"

> Flight Deck that the aircraft and helicopters in the air wing need

Hmmmm, what did they mean by this.

>>31899841
Because there's 12 to 15 aircraft in the landing area and all of them need to go somewhere in order for at least one of them to be able to land. guess where will they go? To the nose, effectively preventing any aircraft from being launched.

>>31899842

Notice how everything you circled is first go aircraft, you moron, as in, they take off fucking first, as in nothing will be in the air, thus nothing will need to land, until they are in the air.

>>31899849
They mean that it takes into account the space on the flight deck and hangar that can house aircraft. ONCE AGAIN, look at the actual pre-launch spotting pattern and tell me where you are going to fit another 60 aircraft in order for it to remain anything other but a cargo vessel.

>>31899852
see
>>31899853

>>31899853
Not everything, and see >>31899852

>>31899873
Yes, everything on the landing strip is first go, hence why they are first go.

...but can it defeat a wing of Stukas?

>>31899870
All of them need to go somewhere in order for at least one of them to be able to land. ALL OF THEM. ON ORDER FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THEM. Read these two phrases until the revelation strikes you.

>>31899889
All of the first go need to go?

NO SHIT. THEY ARE FIRST GO.

>>31899878
You launch first to go aircraft. One lands. Where do you put it? You can't put it where it was - if takes place on A FUCKING LANDING STRIP. Jesus fucking Christ.

>>31897496
The admiral Nakhimov will be a beast.

Armament:
10 x 8 3M-54 Klub / P-800 Oniks AShM
16 × 8 (128) 3K95 "Kinzhal" (SA-N-9) surface-to-air missiles
12 × 8 (96) S-400PMU Triumph (S-400 (SA-20)) surface-to-air missiles
44 OSA-MA (SA-N-4 Gecko) PD SAM
2 × RBU-1000 (Smerch-3) 305 mm ASW rocket launchers
2 × RBU-12000 (Udav-1) 254 mm ASW rocket launchers
1 twin AK-130 130 mm/L70 dual purpose gun
10 533 mm ASW/ASuW torpedo tubes, Type 53 torpedo or SS-N-15 ASW missile
6 × Kashtan (CADS-N-1) point defense gun/missile system
Armour: 76 mm (3 in) plating around reactor compartment, light splinter protection
Aircraft carried: 3-5 Kamov Ka-27 "Helix" or Ka-25 "Hormone"
Aviation facilities: Below-deck hangar

>>31899899

>planes launch then land one at a time

LOL

>>31899864
>They mean that it takes into account the space on the flight deck and hangar that can house aircraft

No anon, it says "that the air wing needs"

Why would an air wing need anything if it was just a cargo craft?

>look at my random spotting pattern that uses many other airframes than an F-18 sized airframe

Spoiler alert: spotting patterns change, they go over this in your very own PDF.

>>31899397

>And how is that?

Just look at a typical carrier air wing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Air_Wing_Seventeen

By carrying bigger aircraft, launched via catapults from a larger flight deck, with a greater payload and range (F/A-18E & later F-35C), dedicated EW aircraft (EA-18G), a dedicated fixed wing AEW asset (E-2C), dedicated cargo aircraft (C-2), and a mix of different helicopters (MH-60R, MH-60S). How many aircraft you can cram onto a ship is just a small fraction of what a carrier can do.

>It literally is,

Oh really? How much greater an area can a 200 VLS ship defend against aircraft & AShMs than a 100 VLS ship? Can it launch a strike on an enemy fleet/country from multiple directions at once?

>a 200 missile ship houses more radars hence being more powerful in the actually relevant sense of being able to actually put more missiles in use simultaneously.

Except radar power is not relevant for over the horizon attacks against surface targets. Extra power can be useful against low RCS aircraft, granted, but one large air defence vessel covers less area than multiple smaller vessels because of the exponential drop off in detection with range.

>>31897594
This. Good summary.
Russias Navy has always been defence-oriented, which makes the deployment to Syria all the more unusual and out of design for the ships.

>>31899926
I guess last dozen aircraft to land just has to figure something out. God fucking damn it.
>>31899936
Why would an air wing need space? Gee, I wonder, maybe because the point of this very fucking calculation is to show how much place there is on the ship? Once again, look at the actual pre-launch spotting pattern and tell me where you are going to fit another 60 aircraft in order for it to remain anything other but a cargo vessel. 60 FUCKING AIRCRAFT, anon. Not 4. Not 12. SIXTY. Five fucking dozens. Jesus Christ, you mentally challenged dense motherfucker. I'm out, there's no point to talk to trolls.

>>31899967
>Why would an air wing need space?

To do things airwings do, like take off and land.

>muh pre-launch spotting pattern

You actually think there is only ONE spotting pattern. L E FUKIN L

You think that an E-2 or an F-14 takes up the same space as an F-18. L E FUKIN L

>IM OUT!!!

Thats for the best.

>>31899967
>I guess last dozen aircraft to land just has to figure something out.

If you are done and back to full deck, there is plenty of space on the take off runways.

>>31897496
It's a giant floating target. Like a carrier, except it can't attack targets at range like a carrier. It literally is pointless.

File: NH-90071-KN_CGN-9_AAW_Refit_for_FY77-78-79_Concept_(FADE).jpg (443KB, 1920x1300px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1920x1300px

>>31897496
>tfw no CSGN

>>31900051
>It's a giant floating target.

It's a floating S-300 system. It can shoot down anything that tries to come close. In the refit it's getting the S-400 plus the kalibr launcher, just like the Nakhimov.

File: CwVcVhVWgAA7Qpr.jpg (206KB, 1024x873px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1024x873px

>>31897496
Sure, now that Kuznetsov is incapacitated, ruskies need a new topic to discuss

>>31898315
>not liking Russian food
Pussy

>>31900539
>Kuznetsov is incapacitated
This is obvious refueling ops

>>31900622
proofs, or GTFO

>>31900314
The range on the S-300 isn't good enough to stop cruise missiles fired off of F/A-18s. Or subs.

>>31900622
>obvious
>covering up
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=285_1478208718

>>31900539

Is that why it's taking her half a year to get to Syria?

>>31900695
>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=285_1478208718
A random vid from LiveLeaks with faggotlike sounding narrator should be prove anything?

>>31899064
What about container ship assault carrier fags?

>>31900655
Harpoon or tomahawk are too slow, they wouldn't even pass the Pantsir. Much less the mach 6 missiles with 150km engament range from the S-300. The Pyotr Velikiy is the surface ship with the best anti-submarine weapons in the Russian navy.

File: Medium_ocean_tanker_-Pechenga-_in_1994.JPEG.jpg (45KB, 600x217px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x217px

>>31900539
>>31900695

Yeah definitely not a fueltanker at all... I'm no slavaboo but have you morons ever even seen a tugboat before???

>>31900539
So, something that totally is not a tugboat is towing Kuz? In reverse? Seriously, are you that dumb?

File: LiveLeak-dot-com-d39_1478276564-Medium_ocean_tanker_-Pechenga-_in_1994JP_1478276571.jpg (591KB, 1920x694px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1920x694px

>>31900649
>proofs, or GTFO
Second ship is tanker, pic related, not tugboat.

>>31900792
THE KUZNETSOV BLEW UP AND IT'S NOT GOING TO SYRIA! IT WILL BECOME AN ARTIFICIAL REEF!

>>31900714
Is it STILL not there yet? Christ!

>>31900649
I'am fully ok with you make fool of yourself

File: 14781751523060.jpg (247KB, 1920x805px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1920x805px

>>31900539
It's a tanker, dumbass.

>>31900761
Those are all the same guy.

>>31900766
because she's going to be able to stop 30-40 of them? And most likely it would be LRASMs fired from well outside the S-300 range, making sure the F/A-18s are not in any danger, ever.

File: 1457994571340.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

>>31897556
>>31897588
>>31898305
>>31898619

>>31899064
As far as I know there are no unironic gavinfags and only one gliderfag. BBfags otoh are more numerous and quite serious.

>>31900539
>there are motherfucking fire trucks on board of that thing
Fascinating.

>>31900079
>twin-arm launchers
Eh, probably for the best.

>>31901471
So what? All carriers have fire trucks.

>>31901036
>LRASMs

>using weapons that aren't even in the US arsenal yet

Well, so we can use Nakhimov already too and use the Tsirkon hypersonic missiles too.

>>31901354
>people actually believe this

>>31900622
Another proof that russians do everything ass backwards

>>31900904
What about PT Boat guy?

>>31901372

I'm a BB fag because naval arty and armor is very underrated.

>>31901819

Yea those are all me. The Listerine. But most the time people accuse others of being me because they don't understand its possible for others to think like me because I'm so insane.

>>31897496
I dunno but all that ordnance is kinda worrying if you ask me. I mean, at this point, the question is not (((whether))) the ship will blow itself up due a freak accident but (((when))).