Why are Russian warship more heavily armed compared to the US
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 08. 2024
- For example, on the U.S-Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, they're actually removing armaments from the ship, the newest ones do not even have harpoon anti-ship missiles, and one or both of the ship's phalanx sea guns have been removed. The reason is that the U.S is undergoing a shift with the ending of the cold war and the new threat from a growing Chinese navy. Therefore, they are focusing more on submarine warfare created the need to the construction of a helicopter hangar which required the removal of the harpoon missiles, also new anti-ship missiles are being developed like an anti-ship version of tomahawk and the lRASM both which can fit in the destroyer's VLS cells making harpoon unnecessary. Additionally, the phalanx are replaced with sea-ram which uses guided missiles to be more accurate. Other plans involve eventually installing laser guns on board, which can potentially be much more reliable and without being limited by available missiles or bullets.
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/ - Věda a technologie
Igor: did you see the empty space on that ship?
Ivan: yes.
Igor: make sure I don't see it again.
US during WW2
1:47 this ship has recently been promoted to submarine
Imao.
Imao.
@@giacomogiacomo1194 Don't have kids
No there are 3 of Moskova class
Oh look the ill fated Moscova now a submarine
Russian be like " I paid for full deck I will use the full Deck"
ah yes, everybody in comment section are experts I see.
Most of the comments are memes and jokes though
As usual
Well, as a matter of a fact I…. 😂
Ikr experts at being goofy
I could see a real issue with putting too many weapons on a ship, one hit could start a chain reaction destroying the entire ship.
That sounds about right...
Same goes for an aircraft carrier . If a Russian hypersonic missile hits the deck of the carrier its pretty much useless .Not to mention the fact that the russian hypersonic missiles are un-interceptable
@@theduke1654 • US carriers now have defenses to deal with incoming hypersonic missile threats Duke...
Aged well
@@theduke1654 Russia isn't the only country with hypersonic missiles
I always figured the Russian’s military doctrine assumed warships would probably get only one chance to use their weapons in an all out naval battle, so put them all up on deck where they could be fired immediately, and if the ship survives, great, rearm and send back out. Well, even if that's not the reason, it does make the ships look more intimidating.
The Moskva was able to destroy TWO Neptune missiles.
And then ukraine sank it's best ship
you believe too much in the media and the internet and in what they market, and you are not smart enough to investigate exactly what happened to the cruiser, but be sure that the Ukrainians did not sink it, but that incident was very convenient for them to attribute it to themselves as their success, and of course you from the US you present it as the incompetence of the Russian army, but you yourself know that Russia can never lose a war, the sooner you understand it, the sooner it will be better for all of us
@@tsmatthx2 it's aa wasn't able to work due to being cannibalized for parts
@@tsmatthx2 best ship ^^ is what they tell you ? look up how old it was^^ btw did you see any footage ukraine sunk it? coz i did see a lil footage of how they tryed to pull it back to harbour and it took almost 24 hours to sink and everyone besides 7 dudes i think was evacuated . this 7 dudes fucked around with the old torpedos and sunk the ship. shit happens
Maintenance would always remain an important issue
Of course the effectiveness of a warship depends on more than just the amount of armament but the thing that really startles me is the lacking weaponry on the littoral combat ships... they were designed to replace the perry class frigates and tasked with defending the coastlines but to outsiders it almost seems like they don't have any offensive capabilities... since the naval strike missile etc. were only later additions, the naval gun and 1 single searam (or cwis) were technically all they had as armament... like, what kind of "warship" is that... there are mine sweepers with the same kind of armament...
They sound like the most powerful U.S. Coast Guard frigates ever made.
belle analyse et bonne explication des besoin et attentes ayant présidés à la conception de ces navires
They do make a beautiful looking ship.
It's two different philosophies about military equipment one is durable, cheap, easy to
They're nice and heavy so when they hit the bottom they can hear them all the way back home
Russian reliability is virtually half of almost every other country when it comes to weapons and defenses that’s why they carry twice as many because they’re not that effective
After they break down and are being towed back to port they need to defend themselves and especially the tugboats.
Classic Americans underestimating their rivals
@@Jykobe491yup. those muricans got wrecked by rice farmers and afghan herdsmen
@@theduke1654 So did the soviets
@@Jykobe491 Oh yeah like Moscow totally didn't sink
everyone gangsta till russia makes the yamato but its modern
What a ship wow awesome
Why? So the ammunition can denote and destroy the ship when Ukrainian missiles hit them.
So that it can easily sink....
I guess they are good at packing ammo
4.38 «fortunately»❓
me when building ships in a game:
The difference between US and Russian equipment is that the US equipment works.
Lmao but true
Russian weapons were central to the US defeat in Vietnam. And they also brought Israel to the edge of defeat in the 1973 Mideast war. Mao used Russian weapons to defeat Chinese nationalists. US weapons are so incredibly expensive even the highest quality systems are rarely mass produced.
Because their equipment routinely fails to work so they got to put a whole bunch extra on it to try to make it work
Check out USA failure rate.
@@duanepigden1337 USA test weapons first before going to war with them that's the difference that's the failure rate you're talkin about during test dose don't end up on the ship during a war
@@RaptorRotorHead -- the Patriot missile system missed every intercept during the first gulf war for instance.
@@RaptorRotorHead ye ur really are an i d iot
If u think Russian doesn’t test its weapons during development
@@duanepigden1337 that's not apples to apples and oranges the oranges a patriot missile is a bullet trying to hit another bullet a Russian cruise missile is launched it from a boat and landing in the apartment building that's the difference now if you want to talk about our cruise missiles against Russian cruise missiles our cruise missiles don't land in apartment buildings
PLS make Russian subtitles, I'm from Russia and I love watching your videos.
Do russian support ukraine invasion ?
From what I heard there are.protest in Russia for the invasion but whenever I try to click the article the site shuts down the page.
@@lazypizzaship8911 Protests mean nothing, even american protested Against USA invasion. Russia need revolution to decapitate Putin decision
@@user-oy8nm2ri6y did the US govn stop the war when there were protest about the war in Vietnam and Iraq? (edit: grammar)
@@user-oy8nm2ri6y in your dreams mate.
Sticking all your weapons on one ship definitely makes that ship more of a formidable foe, but it is also putting all your eggs in 1 basket if something were to happen to that ship too. As Russia learned when the Moskva was promoted last year to submarine, third rate.
Just like the Yamamoto was, yet it was sunk so fast, aircraft carriers rule period.
Can you imagine if that thing join the Carrier Strike force.
Too late it sunk
Why? Because it weapons only work half of the time.
They have less so they need more on what they have.
I can tell, sending a cruiser made totally to atack carriers at open sea to do the job a few frigates could do is a dumb idea
No, they are not, for each equivalent size, Russian ships have a lot fewer missiles:)
….why you’re counting meer missiles number? It’s like saying a pubg squad is more heavily armed than a tank. A tank has 3 guns, the squad has 12 and use 4 at a time
The chinese is using this logic to say they have a bigger fleet than the US
Heavier but not superior
Repairments???
How many do they have? Oh, one. OK.
and is for defense not to attack and now you guys question why russia invaded ukraine the russians were being encircledyou always make fun of russian arms not working of not having money their budget is very low compared to the west the whole russian economy lower than the state of texas yet nato got closer and closer to the poor failed country of russia how come now the innocent people of ukraine are paying the price they believed the lies of the leaders of the west
@@jjuanmarin Fun fact: Every country is encircled. These are your neighbors. If you behave like an a-hole, they are not your friends. Nobody believes Putin, and soon, nobody will like Russia anymore.
@@Falcodevienna encircled by enemy him missing a detail and you picking it out doesn’t make you right. And that’s bullshit, tons of people like Putin, not that I agree with them
@@Falcodevienna And uhm, you do realize that if you’re right, Russia has all the reason it needs to go to war with it’s enemies. It’s gonna die anyway, why go alone?
@@trevorle7382 Re to your statements: Approval rates for Putin are that low that people dare open protest in the cities of Russia. And yeah, if you are a maniac, you may want to „take people with you“. But I guess between him and this suicide mission, there are many brave Russian soldiers that would intervene.
different design philosophy. American warships travel a greater distance, require space to be used for stores, anti-air, and anti-sub, with anti-surface (ship to ship) being the least important aspect. speed and endurance being prime considerations. Russian warships expect to have less air-cover (Russia having few allies - being authoritarian in nature) - but possessing superior, long-range anti-aircraft missiles. however, American warships can shoot more anti-air-missiles as a result of reduced range-of-missiles. Russian warships having par anti-sub protection.
that's is . The US is stationed all around the world , Russia and China are in their own bubble and bc of that fact , they need to worry about themselves and bordering allies . So frankly said , US is on the attack side and vice versa
@@nquggg6971 us are invaders and have puppet allies, russian are defensive.
why do you need to travel far, authoritarian do that. They install their will on surroundings, make colonies.
Oh boy___here you go again..!
🇬🇧 The more weapon’s they carry allows them to sink faster.
Usa supposed to get the lazer guns as of 2021 and 2022
and light swords.
i think i heard that caption before...but where huh??
wonder where from...
Here, same
Comparing one outdated warship limited to the black sea to a integrated fleet of frigates ans destroyers
Oh and death from aircraft carriers
Aircraft carrier on board weapons are for crap that can get past the defensive shield around it
Are you sure? I think you better fax check that...
Manufacturer, doesn't require a lot of sophisticated maintenance support. This is how they beat the Germans. Well we on the other hand are relying on our technology and heavily engineered equipment that requires continuous maintenance and upkeep and we'll all find out on the battlefield one day I'm afraid which philosophy works. I suspect that it's dependent on the duration of the conflict
I dislike the US more than Russia, but you’re fine bro, the US Navy is doing fine :))))
@@trevorle7382 No it isn't, the navy is getting rid of more ships than its building. Leaving the US vulnerable if China ever attacks.
No su eres estadounidense, debes saber que los Sovieticos fueron los que derrotaron a la Alemania Nazi, enterate de la verdadera historia
A 130mm gun isn't massive...
When many of your weapons won't work like they're Hammer tech from Iron Man, you compensate by making a ton of them & hope some go bang when you try to fight?
Simple we have more ships....
Vulnerable to blast Russian ship
To big and slow. It would need it's own strike group. Russia is a poor nation and can't afford many ships hence needing to fill the ships they have to the top with weapons.
This vid isn't 100% accurate...
@@franktank4360 No video is, but it doesnt change the fact this ship is 252 meters long/ 827 feet, and turns so slow, and is just a slow ship overall do to it's size. Nothing is perfect, everything has it's pros and cons, and this ship is just weighted down with a lot of weaponry.
@@ThatCarGuy • True...
Big mistake, making more heavily armored ships makes it so you cant make a lot of them. You need a lot of resources. 2 not so heavily armored ships are better than 1 heavily armored ship.
i disagree
Lmao you need to go and have a look at some of the WW2 battles at sea.
@@ragey666 midway and guatecanal were actually insane battles
@@TheAknativeboy guadalcanal was mostly land battle, there were few naval battles mostly destroyers. Midway was carrier battle
Wrong, because they don’t have enough resource for more ships, they stack more onto fewer ships to fit their needs
US has ships targeted for invasion (air carriers). Russia has ships targeted for defense (rocket warships).
Oh boy..!
@@franktank4360 what "oboy". Missile warship can destroy radar defenses, selective large targets, but it can't establish dominance over a territory over prolonged time until main forces arrive.
@@HECKAKYH-ADEKBATEH • First you said "Russia has ships targeted for defense: rocket warships" now you're saying "it can't establish dominance over territories for prolonged periods until main forces arrives" just get to the point...
"Why are Russian warship more heavily armed compared to the US"
You mean "apparently " more heavily armed. The Kirov Class Is a great, big obsolete piece of Cold War theatre. Those massive, useless missiles up there on the desk weathering away look HUGE, like they've unzipped their fly and are swinging their appendage around for all to see. FEARSOME! ... and so 1975. An American Ardleigh destroyer outguns this sea-borne dinosaur but hey ... you can't see the missiles so it's less manly.
How do u think , Ur lame arleigh burke can outgun a kirov plz explain .
U gave more reasons why the us doesn't keep more weapons than the Russians
Russian warship went to... :)
America like to work hard not easy. 5 Sherman tank vs. 1 Tiger tank
Not no more...
@@franktank4360 Russian tanks have more armor Guns have longer range More fire power.
@@DayneJAH333 • That's your opinion...
Do USA is planning on launching 200 submarines over the next 36 months more reliable more difficult to find far more difficult to defend against and of course proven to be much more effective
Your correct. However, the US fleet retires a ship for each new ship produced. Making it near impossible to create a larger US fleet.
The 🇺🇸 destroyers have 96 VLS, cruisers 112 VLS. All in a ship of. 9000`to 10000 tons. Ton for ton wise 🇺🇸 ships have 1 VLS to every 100 tons. Do 🇷🇺 war ships have the same ratio?
Why are Russian warship more heavily armed compared to the US?
Giving the amount of missile landing in Ukraine and not exploding, I think that might be the reason why.
Maybe because it's a piece of junk..
What is your source of info?
@@duanepigden1337 his Source came from his ass and CNN propaganda 😂
Whilst I don't like Russia....there technology is as good and sometimes better than anyone elses.
Go look up some I'd their greatest kit
gareth hahahah Are you maybe mistaking the empty canister from a cluster munitions rocket for a failed missle ?
Primary due to Russian Goverment paranoia, which makes it ineffective as a military machine.
because 70% failure rate
us navy would destroy that ship in seconds
Wait and it will sink by itself like the Kursk.
This totally insane analysis ...you miss the gazillion frigates in multiple configurations and destroyers
Really did you do any research before making this
and today is gone no more 👍🏾
D O C T R I N E
TO BE ACCURATE !
Before a Russian ship launches a torpedo boat or a missile, it is already at the bottom of the ocean.
typical american ,underestimating a rival
@@theduke1654 • Russia already lost, guess Putin underestimated Ukraine...
no offence but i perfer to see a ship with guns then one whit a pea shhoter, like in us and european navies.
i agree
@@jjuanmarin and me thinking I was the only one
Exactly what is the peashooter?? The missiles?
@@trevorle7382 yes the missiles, but in this case I was referring to the very small guns on the ships,
Why are Russian warship more heavily armed compared to the US - it’s so they make a bigger bang when they are hit and sunk by Nato 🇺🇦🇬🇧
The NATO that promised UKR they’ll let it join even though they never will, even when they could have done that to prevent the war
slava class = Moskva. needs only 2 Neptuns to sink it.... think about it !
Somalian fleet is the strongest
Unless they're going up against Tom Hanks... Lmao 🤣
Or Chuck Norris...
Why rassian warships heavy compered us warsgip
Becouse rassain
Warships
Are very advanced armerod technolgies
👍😎🍺🍩🚢🚀
.
better have it and not need it , its what the meris usualy say^^
It's economic, Russi wants more bang for its bucks , in America cooperation have taken over so more vessel means more profitable.
Sub indo please
kenapa?? nggak faham bahasa inggeris ya??😂😂.. nggak hairan lah kenapa begitu byk hoax dan cerita bohong di Indon😁😁
@@faqihaqil9044 makanya gw minta sub lol
@@li7146 Install duolingo bang klo mo belajar bahasa inggris dgn cepat dan murah (btw saya bukan sales nya duolingo yak wkwkwkwk)
tecnology 1st
Russian propaganda channel back at it again.
here we go begging for views
Good luck Russia 🔝🔝🔝
I support Russia
Long live rusia
Ahh you marionettes... ;-)
Russia is just better at everything it does
Nope...
@@franktank4360 not good at invading, not good at misinformation, not good at making puppets.
@@HECKAKYH-ADEKBATEH • Putin's your liege and you're his marionette and he made the biggest mistake, can you figure that out or guess what it is? 1nce you've figured that out___let me know...
@@franktank4360 Slogan, slogan, slogan as Johnson said "Russia blablabla" during hard shelling of east ukraine. Russia no more blablabla.
@@franktank4360 reference to "Russia blablabla" - Boris Johnson Press conference with NATO, on Pupia News channel, timecode 11:19
Glory to the Russian people!!!Long live President PUTIN!!!🐻🐻❄🐻
Jabrone...