Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- From: kolinatrix@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 16 Jul 2006 04:30:38 -0700
M wrote:
But, if the capability to wipe out CVBG's "no matter what" really
was a priority, I cannot see why shotgun-targeted M(I)RV's wouldn't
fit the bill. And, cost-efficiently even, at least in the very limited
sense of being cheaper than a CG, if strategic nukes and BM's were
fielded anyway.
Especially as Soviets had operational satellite-based targeting system
"MKRC Legenda", partially operational from 1969 onwards and fully
operational from 1979 onwards. System had both radar and sigint
satellites. Radar satellite was powered with small nuclear poweplant
and Canada was not amused when Cosmos 954 fell upon them in 1978... On
the other hand, as it was Soviet technology, does anyone have any idea
if MKRC Legenda actually worked or not? According to declassified CIA
estimate from 1983 the system had capability of:
"high probability of detecting carrier-sized ships in fair weather" and
"detection of destroyer-sized ships highly probable, but only under the
best of conditions (illuminated length-on in calm seas)".
But naturally this is Reagan build-up estimate so possibly it may have
to be taken with a grain of salt.
More information on MKRC Legenda:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html
If it did not work, the missiles could have been targeted by MRSC-1
Uspekh U which combined information from SIGINT and radar recon
aircraft.
Mvh,
Jon K
.
- References:
- Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- From: Keith W
- Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- From: M
- Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- Prev by Date: Re: A U-boat goes beyond crush depth...what happens next?
- Next by Date: Re: Rogue Giants at Sea
- Previous by thread: Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- Next by thread: Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading