Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Share
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:13 am

    So , at what range we can compare the russan navy with the U.S one ,
    I don't mean a comparison in numbers but the tactics , The U.S is over numbered , but seems Russia is using some tactics to face this U.S advantage , as example the Russian increase the numbers and types of anti-ships cruise missiles to face the U.S numbers in aircraft carriers and frigates etc , installing the latest airdefences on some vessels to encounter the U.S navy airforce ,

    Anyone has own analysis or an article on these tactics ?

    And correct me if i'm wrong , when we define the russian navy can we call it a global navy that has ability to spread in many places overseas in the same time to face enemy navies ( like U.S one ) or to blockade the coasts of a country ? or it just a navy that protect it's country coasts ?


    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Austin on Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:39 am

    In conventional war Russian Navy today does not stand much chance to take on USN.

    Considering the RuN reforms and modernisation is on going and by 2020 it will get some conventional teeth , even then the USN will outclass RuN conventionally.

    So its really a question of how quickly this escalates into nuclear conflict.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:20 pm

    There would have been a large number of various classes of aircraft and heli carriers, ranging from Moskva, Kuznetsov etc, all the way up to the giant Ulyanovsks. That would have given immense power projection - IF ofcourse that was desired.
    And also a maintainence and support nightmare with no two ships having the same systems/armament/sensors/propulsion.

    Having ten different types of anti ship missile with different radar targeting systems is not an advantage.

    Case in point... the Sovremmeny and Udaloy class vessels are both good ship classes, the former is a AA destroyer and the latter is an ASW destroyer.

    Both had 8 large missiles as their main armament... the Sov had moskits and the Udaloy had anti ship and anti sub SS-N-14s. Each was optimised for their task and were very differently equipped with different SAMs, different main missiles, different radars.

    Now you can build a new ship and fit it with 2 UKSK launch bins each capable of carrying 8 missiles that include Moskit replacements (Yakhont/Onyx/Brahmos) and SS-N-14 replacements (Klub) and it can also carry long range land attack cruise missiles (Kalibr).

    The difference is the new ship can carry 16 missiles in its two launchers and will be fitted with propulsion and radar and other systems used on other Russian vessels.

    Even small corvettes will use the UKSK launcher... and even carriers and submarines will carry it using the same variety of missiles.

    Imagine a Kiev class carrier going from Russian port to Russian port... how many Russian ports have support equipment for the Vulkan? They would all need it. In the future all Russian ports will have equipment to load UKSK launchers as that will be standard on all surface and subsurface vessels in the Russian Navy.

    Radars will be the same... standard SAM systems (Redut and Shtil-1) and CIWS (Morfei and Pantsir-S1 and Klintok), standard guns, standard communications, sonar, etc etc.

    More importantly instead of building 10 Sovs and 10 Udaloys you can build 25 new destroyers for the same price because the larger production numbers means better savings and you can decide whether to have 12 AA destroyers and 13 ASW destroyers at the dock where you load the UKSK tubes... or you can load a mix of ASW/AShM/Land attack CM and have a multipurpose vessel... better than either of the two Soviet vessels.

    The facts are that the new Russian Navy will be much smaller than the Soviet Navy, but it will be much more capable with better weapons and better sensors and even better armed and equipped ships and subs.

    Russia certainly needs a big navy to defend her envied assets.
    Russia is primarily a land power, but if it has global ambitions then a strong navy is important. It doesn't need to be big, but it does need to be smart and capable.

    Ships with long lives and multiple refits sound a good idea. Its a shame Russia isn't talking about refitting Ulyanovsks etc, but ofcourse they were scrapped during construction.
    The Us were designed quite some time ago... I am sure they can come up with better designs now.

    The idea would be that Russia could have a substantially larger navy than otherwise.
    It doesn't really need a large navy, though a gatling gun or two on its commercial vessels would certainly reduce piracy on the open ocean...


    I also wonder about how piracy operations and funding is decided. What is the incentive for providing ships etc? What is the incentive for snuffing out piracy etc etc?
    Piracy is like bank robbery... where there is loot there are people prepared to kill to take what is not theirs by right...

    Vladivostok
    Looking good.

    So , at what range we can compare the russan navy with the U.S one ,
    The US is a trading nation that needs key sea lanes to remain open and accessible. Russia is also a trading nation but if it lost its ports it would find land based alternatives.

    The US needs to control the sea... Russia does not.

    or it just a navy that protect it's country coasts ?
    At the moment this, but with the capacity for trips of small groups of ships to far flung places like Cuba and Venezuela.

    The purpose of the carriers is to allow much better mobility and long range trips with more regularity.

    Russia is not likely to set up a naval blockade any time soon... that is more an imperial thing to do like US and formerly UK.

    In conventional war Russian Navy today does not stand much chance to take on USN.

    Considering the RuN reforms and modernisation is on going and by 2020 it will get some conventional teeth , even then the USN will outclass RuN conventionally.
    The Russian Navy is not designed to "Tour", while the USN is designed to take the fight to the enemy. If both navies are used as designed there is an impass as the primary mission of the Russian Navy is the third leg of the nuclear triad so as long as they can launch their SLBMs then they win.

    Given the nature of the relationship between the US and Russia a naval blockade is rather impractical and an F-18 naval strike on Russian land targets would struggle against most S-300 based defences... Vityaz and S-400 will make that even more one sided.

    Needless to say the Russian Navy was useless in Kosovo, but then the US Navy was useless in Georgia 2008 too.

    With every Russian naval vessel... surface and sub surface... corvette to carrier being equipped with long range land attack cruise missiles and Vityaz/S-400 air defence systems... the best is yet to come.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:59 pm


    GarryB wrote:The US is a trading nation that needs key sea lanes to remain open and accessible. Russia is also a trading nation but if it lost its ports it would find land based alternatives.
    Can you explain more Garry , do you mean internal trading or external one ? did U.S has no land based alternatives ?

    As Sa'iqa

    Posts : 415
    Points : 351
    Join date : 2013-06-01
    Age : 23
    Location : Western Poland

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  As Sa'iqa on Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:20 pm

    He meant external trade. In order for US goods to reach their destination in Europe and Asia, they must be transported either by air or by sea - so a strong navy is a must in order to prevent a blockade of trade routes.

    Russia, by contrast, doesn't need a large navy, because her trade routes are mostly land based.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:52 pm

    Austin wrote:In conventional war Russian Navy today does not stand much chance to take on USN.

    I beg to differ firmly on that point.

    If we talk of power projection capabilities (a requirement around which the US Navy has been conceived) what you said is absolutely true .

    If we talk of anti-ship attrition potential (an asymmetrical response ,requiring much lower numerical and economical efforts, around which Soviet Navy including its air component  was designed) is ,very likely, true the exact opposite.


    The central point is that a Navy with strong power projection requirements, compel the relative nation at invest immense resources in the production of an high number of surface and undersurface combatants and theirs support units while a Navy designed merely for the neutralization of enemy naval component can point on the much less demanding option of commit few "killer" units, armed with superior specialized weaponry,  at the selective destruction of a very higher number of enemy units


    Several enthusiast around the world would remain terribly disappointed in discovering how much incredibly vulnerable and fragile would result even the most modern western CVBGs to attacks carried on ,from enormous stand-off distances with conventionally armed Cold War era "monsters" such as Kh-22M or P-700/P-1000 (for remain totally silent of much up-to-date  3M54,3M55 or Kh-32) of which not even a very far counterpart exist in any western arsenal.




    This kind of vulnerability has been known by western strategists since plain Cold War ,but the advantages offered by the capability to project quickly and uncontested military power around the globe against almost any potential enemy and the presence of nuclear deterrence element against the unique enemy capable to fully capitalize its wide vulnerability, lead US planners to considers the plus of this option greatly exceeding the minus.

    At today instead ,at tight pace, inflamed debates erupt in US Navy rooms on the effective obsolescence of the Navy organization around high number of high expensive ships with the slow penetration of similar asymmetrical responses in the arsenal of regional enemies not frozen in the nuclear stalemate .    
           


    Austin wrote:So its really a question of how quickly this escalates into nuclear conflict.
    - A CvBG in blue water
    - A pair of independent Oscar class anywhere several hundreds of kilometer outside the self screening zone of that CvBG
    - 2-3 minutes for delivery of a coordinated attack with 48 P-700 and some dozen of Kalibr-N all capable of "swarm intelligence" offensive approach and coming from 2-3 attack vectors and disappear
    - Observe the effects on those multi-billion dollar ships and the thousands of lives them host
    - Try to ascertain what side would be first forced at escalate toward nuclear under the pressure of internal public opinion.....Wink 


    I repeat : the difference between the level of anti-ship weaponry of the two sides and the relative offensive/defensive options opened for one on the other is simply overwhelming .
    A comparison ship-to-ship is very misleading.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3246
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:18 pm

    If the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean arms its nuclear-tipped anti-ship missiles; they would very quickly close any numerical disadvantage they have.
    Whether they have such warheads on-board right now is a different question though.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:46 pm

    Are there runavy subs deployed in the med? Kilo class subs woulddo great in those relatively small waters.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Viktor on Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:49 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:Are there runavy subs deployed in the med? Kilo class subs woulddo great in those relatively small waters.
    Oscar class would do better Very Happy 

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Austin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:35 pm

    Most likely Akula would be deployed in Med , as UK are know to have deployed Astute class and US would likely deploy Virginia or Seawolf ......Akula is the only beast that can compete with these two.

    I am pretty sure some interesting cat and mouse game must be going on deep inside Med

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Austin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:36 pm

    The Syrian crises have most certainly reveled one perrienial weakness Russian Navy which is they not having a carrier.

    Hopefully its also a less for Russian Navy and Putin that they need 4 Aircrafft Carrier each for fleet and one reserve.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  ahmedfire on Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:38 pm

    Ok some guys in defencetalk forum put some points :

    # U.S navy is training to face russian navy cruise missiles

    powered GQM-163A was developed to simulate supersonic cruise missiles like the SS-N-22 Sunburn, Kh-31 (aka. AS-17 Krypton, which may have an anti-air AWACS-killer version ), the Indo-Russian PJ-10 Brahmos, etc., which are proliferating throughout the world. Their speed and evasive maneuvers compress the amount of time a defense system has to deal with them to under a minute. A training target that can simulate their performance is critical to both proper preparedness and pursuant performance,
    Rail-launched from Navy test and training ranges, the highly maneuverable Coyote achieves cruise speeds of over Mach 2.5, with a range of approximately 60 nautical miles at altitudes of less than 20 feet above the sea surface.
    In the terminal approach phase, the GQM-163A will fly at Mach 2.5 at 5 m (16 ft) altitude.




    The french also succeded to use ASTER against cruise missile
    A GQM-163 launched from the Mediterranean island of Levant is used as a supersonic target for France’s high-end air defense ship FS Forbin, which shoots it down using an MBDA Aster-30 missile . Her sister ship, FS Chevalier Paul, tracks the target and the missiles fired.

    They also claims that they don't want many cruise missile like russia because U.S navy has it's airforce navy can take their harpon missiles overseas which is an advantage that doesn't exist in the russian navy so Russia is obliged to make a long range cruise missiles because russian navy airforce has not that ability to carry a middle range cruise missile like U.S navy airforce , so the U.S navy airforce will use these missile against russian submarines and frigates that threaten U.S aircraft carrier before that submarine can reach a range to fire on that aircraft carrier , which means that the U.S navy airforce has the upper hand in the future navy conflict . just a point we need to discuss.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  TR1 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:48 pm

    Austin wrote:The Syrian crises have most certainly reveled one perrienial weakness Russian Navy which is they not having a carrier.

    Hopefully its also a less for Russian Navy and Putin that they need 4 Aircrafft Carrier each for fleet and one reserve.
    That won't be happening in the next 20 years, if ever.

    It is an absurd moneys sink, for what? Dick measuring over some dictator? No thanks!
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:56 pm

    Some time ago, I read about potential floating bases for Russia to combat the lack of opperational bases outside norm. Something like a floating platform for moving and acting as some sort of base or centre for navy so that they dont have to continuously go back and forth to resupply the larger ships as often, and there would be transport ships that are responsible for supplying the platform. Dont know of what is being done about it, but it sure sounded like a good plan. Then there is the possibility of turning a decomissined oil platform and turning that into a small logistical supply depot. Aircraft carriers are the next best option for Russia since the lack of bases overseas, will allow Russia to project its power if needed. If Russia wants to stay insignificant in internationally, then they dont need it. But Russia then would not be able to protect his interests that are quite a ways away.

    More frigates with longer endurance and longer range for engagements are very important. As well as air defence ships. As well, more auxillery and transport ships too.
    _______________________________________

    On a different note: what is the prospects for navy after building the Borei submarines? Delta class will eventually retire so they need something to fill the voild, at least another 3 or 4 ssbn's. As well, since Yasen is not only expensive, but problematic, any idea of alternatives?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:15 am

    Question for Austin... what is this?



    There are thousands of things Russia can pick a fight with the west over, the point is that there is risk involved in every fight and the potential for real disaster. This is not a friendly poker game amongst friends for 1 dollar a round, this is serious poker between people who really don't actually care whether the other players die or not where the stakes can range from meat export tariffs through to regime change.

    At the end of the day a small maintainence port in the med is not worth a serious fight over. It is worth moving ships into the med... they will be useful in case an evacuation of Russian citizens is needed, but actually firing on western ships is not in Russias interests, so carrier there or not is not actually that critical... the Russians wont risk a whole lot to save Assad... remember he was sucking up to the west when the west turned on him... it is their reaction that has driven him to Russia.

    Russia does not need to build up a navy to take on the west... it will cost an enormous amount of money and what is the gain? Just like during the cold war if both sides have nukes... and they do then there is not much chance of a decisive victory either way.

    The only benefit from a powerful navy is ego and that cost will cripple the Russian economy the way it is currently hurting the US economy. The difference is that the US uses its military and political and economic power to maintain its position so it makes more sense for them to invest in a brute squad.

    Don't get me wrong... I support Russian carriers and think a blue water navy is more useful than none at all... having airpower is a force multiplier and makes a group of ships vastly more capable than if it did not have airborne early warning and air support.

    Of course the Russians are smarter than both of us and have offered the US a carrot that the US loves... control of Syrian government chem weapons... the powerful always crave control of things that can hurt them or change their position of power. For the Syrian government it is giving up nothing because chem weapons are no use in this sort of conflict and even if they don't get them back they can always make more later, but if they give them up and get a guarantee that the US wont attack then it will be very much like the cuban missile crisis... the syrians get a guarantee of no attack and get rid of weapons that they could never really use and hope to survive using, the US gets the weapons they don't like removed and don't have to worry about damage control when a Pantsir-S1 shoots down an F-22... Twisted Evil 

    Ok some guys in defencetalk forum put some points :

    # U.S navy is training to face russian navy cruise missiles
    Have you even looked at the design of this "American" missile?

    It is basically a Kh-31 mounted on the booster rocket for a Standard naval SAM... the full quote of the text you posted had this on the end:

    Despite this growing need, the Supersonic Sea Skimming Target (SSST) program moved very slowly in the 1990s, with false starts that included a Boeing-Strela Kh-31 Krypton variant before the decision was made to develop a new SSST. Orbital Sciences won the contract in June 2000, but the BQM-163 suffered a number of program delays before its final developmental test flight eventually took place in in April 2005. The program is now moving forward, slowly, and picking up international customers as well…

    The Coyote can carry a payload, but its size and short range make it unsuitable as an actual anti-ship missile. Those same characteristics are just fine as a naval target.
    The Coyote was designed and built AFTER the US Navy bought and used Kh-31 missiles under the M-31 program for supersonic anti ship missiles in the mid 1990s.

    Now in 2003 a US company gets a contract to design and make almost exactly the same missile mounted on a solid rocket booster from a USN Standard SAM and they get the missile ready by March 2007 for its first contract.

    If the US has the balls to call the Kh-35 Harpoonski, then Coyote should be called койот... Koyot as it is actually a direct copy.



    They also claims that they don't want many cruise missile like russia because U.S navy has it's airforce navy can take their harpon missiles overseas which is an advantage that doesn't exist in the russian navy so Russia is obliged to make a long range cruise missiles because russian navy airforce has not that ability to carry a middle range cruise missile like U.S navy airforce
    So they are saying having a short range low speed anti ship missile that even the most basic 30mm gatling can shoot down that is actually not that cheap (Harpoons actually cost more than Yakhonts) is an advantage?

    The problem will be when Redut/Poliment enters service their navy will enjoy the same multiple target capability as their land based Vityaz/S-400 units will enjoy so the NATO forces will require exponentially more missiles to hope to penetrate their defences.

    As mentioned one supersonic threat might be able to be dealt with... but when all the missiles inbound are supersonic then there is much less time to engage them.

    There is no such thing as a system that can't be overwhelmed... all systems have a limit as to how many missiles they can engage over a period of time... NATO or Russian it doesn't matter.

    What matters is that the Russian missiles will be moving two to three times faster making that intercept period much much shorter... so when 20 Harpoons come over the horizon the Russian ships would have rather more time to deal with them than a USN or British Navy or French navy group of ships when 20 Yakhonts come over the horizon at much higher speed.

    Can I point out again shooting down a target during training is one thing... British ships in the Falklands were able to shoot down individual artillery shells with their Sea Wolfs and their Sea Darts should have made pretty short work of those Exocets... but they lost quite a few ships.

    so the U.S navy airforce will use these missile against russian submarines and frigates that threaten U.S aircraft carrier before that submarine can reach a range to fire on that aircraft carrier , which means that the U.S navy airforce has the upper hand in the future navy conflict . just a point we need to discuss.
    That of course assumes the US carrier group is moving at very low speed operating an ASW screen looking for subs... Oniks is believed to have a flight range of over 600km and as far as I know US carrier groups don't operate with ASW helos that can detect Russian subs to that range.

    A carrier group in transit at 30knts wouldn't notice any sub surface activity, which means Russian subs like the Oscars could launch their missiles at near max range and then withdraw... any seawolfs or virginias that want to go and hunt those oscars need to realise there might be Akulas and Yasens sitting somewhere silently waiting for them.

    For US carriers to be an actual threat that the Russian Navy has to deal with it will be operating near Russian coastal waters... which radically limits where it can be operating and makes finding and dealing with them much much easier.

    The near future introduction of hypersonic Zircon and Brahmos II missiles just makes it even more interesting.

    Some time ago, I read about potential floating bases for Russia to combat the lack of opperational bases outside norm. Something like a floating platform for moving and acting as some sort of base or centre for navy so that they dont have to continuously go back and forth to resupply the larger ships as often, and there would be transport ships that are responsible for supplying the platform.
    Not just theoretical... I remember talk about temporary moorings in international waters in the Med where supply vessels docked and warships docked to get supplies. Troop ships could carry replacement crews so boats could restock and get complete new crews without having to sail all the way back to a Soviet port or friendly port or expensive foreign port.

    This is cool. Peter the Great journeyed through arctic ice accompanied by 4 (!!!) nuclear icebreakers.
    Nice... Thanks for posting...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:46 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:Ok some guys in defencetalk forum put some points
    I would truly be glad to know who.....do you know i can distinctly remember a funny debate, some years ago, with a self-embarrassing ignorant guy of that "place" sustaining, just on this subject, that US Navy was training with targets capable to perfectly emulate Soviet Russian ASh missiles since '60 years  Laughing Laughing Laughing and that Ma-31 target drone purchase was done by US DoD only because it was a low-cost and low-technology transitory solution (as usual for Soviet/Russians products..... Razz Razz)  Laughing Laughing  and that the "low level" MA-31 was purposely discontinued by US Navy ,after few buys, because from tests became definitely clear not only its scarce technological content but also its low training potential Laughing Laughing, in particular after that the GQM-163 were approved.     

    I naturally let purposely the thing  go on for a while (including the torrent of comical whims that this fanatical neanderthal had the courage to invent ,one after the other....just with me Rolling Eyes ) , before posting one after the other a series of US DoD or ad-hoc Commissions professional surveys and studies ,very up-to-date at the time , such as this one :


    http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf


    from where the statements ,that it had attempted to ridicule, believing that was mine personal opinions,  were precisely cited  Laughing Laughing Laughing 

    It go without saying that the thread was urgently and quickly removed,with all its posts by the ridiculous PR operatives that organize and manage this "place" Cool 


    Anyway ,if any, this authentic technological contraption ,that US Navy is forced to employ as AshM test drone for test its ship defenses, represent the "living" proof of the huge backwardness suffered by western firms of the sector in this particular rocketry segment (i would not bet anything on its capabilities to mimic even only first version of Kh-41 or Kh-31).

    Very likely US Navy has a very very hard time at intercept even it , above all if we consider all the suspect PR trumpets and praises around the GQM-163A's interception executed by the optimum French Aster SAM, and strangely representing also the unique known successful interception of a similar target drone .


    ahmedfire wrote:submarines and frigates that threaten U.S aircraft carrier before that submarine can reach a range to fire on that aircraft carrier , which means that the U.S navy airforce has the upper hand in the future navy conflict .
    Oh yes, yes sure.....  Razz  Razz










    At today is immensely difficult for a CvBG to maintain relatively modern submarines even only outside of theirs torpedo's engagement range and someone pretend to detect and engage in plain Ocean one equipped with cruise missiles with engagement range exceeding.......600 km  Laughing

    Reality is that ,at least since '70 years, a Navy constructed around CvBG is a true anachronism and a very bad idea against any competent , powerful conventional enemy  (and even more against one armed with nuclear weapons where a single detonation can destroy an entire fleet of tightly spaced ships) and only presence of nuclear deterrence against those kind of very powerful enemies and the substantial advantages offered by CvBG's military power projection capabilities against any minor player at world has allowed for theirs persistence up to today (even if among ever growing opposition just in US Navy analysts rooms)

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Austin on Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:29 am

    Mindstorm wrote:





    At today is immensely difficult for a CvBG to maintain relatively modern submarines even only outside of theirs torpedo's engagement range and someone pretend to detect and engage in plain Ocean one equipped with cruise missiles with engagement range exceeding.......600 km  Laughing

    Reality is that ,at least since '70 years, a Navy constructed around CvBG is a true anachronism and a very bad idea against any competent , powerful conventional enemy  (and even more against one armed with nuclear weapons where a single detonation can destroy an entire fleet of tightly spaced ships) and only presence of nuclear deterrence against those kind of very powerful enemies and the substantial advantages offered by CvBG's military power projection capabilities against any minor player at world has allowed for theirs persistence up to today (even if among ever growing opposition just in US Navy analysts rooms)
    Mindstorm, It is really hard to say looking at these two pic of US Navy Carrier on crosshair of periscope within 8000 years perhaps in some NATO exercise and say with confidence that the same will be true in real war. Since we also do not know the terms and condition of these exercises.

    In real war a USN CBG will be protected by a large fleet of surface ships and atleast 2-3 SSN of Virginia/Seawolf class , Russian submarine will have to penetrate the dense net of Surface Ships Sonar , P-8I/helicopters like airborne asset and Submarines own Sonar ......most likely the Surface ship will be actively pinging that makes submarine life more difficult.

    If Oscar like submarine tries to use stand off missile like Granit then it will too face formidable barrage of SM2,Aster or similar missile with Electronic Jamming and Soft countermeasures ( Soft/Hard Kill ) .......so all Oscar can do is to fire their missile using long stand off range of Granit and hope it manages to penetrate AD assets and hit the target ....call it Spray and Pray.

    Russian Admirals have been on record stating that without aircraft carriers their submarine fleet wont survive for more than half a day. Even Russian Admiral said they need Aircraft Carrier

    http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=16549


    Ofcourse if they use Nuclear weapons then the bets are off and the entire dimension changes ...
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Viktor on Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:50 am

    Austin wrote:
    Mindstorm, It is really hard to say looking at these two pic of US Navy Carrier on crosshair of periscope within 8000 years perhaps in some NATO exercise and say with confidence that the same will be true in real war. Since we also do not know the terms and condition of these exercises.
    In exercises like those you will never find a sole aircraft carrier participating on the other side. Every time you have a battle group and yet it ends with the same familiar result

    each and every time no matter what subs you use on the other side.

    Australian, Chilean, China, Sweden, South African, Norway, Dutch etc all have done it and some several times in a row.



    Austin wrote:
    In real war a USN CBG will be protected by a large fleet of surface ships and atleast 2-3  SSN of Virginia/Seawolf class , Russian submarine will have to penetrate the dense net of Surface Ships Sonar , P-8I/helicopters like airborne asset and Submarines own Sonar ......most likely the Surface ship will be actively pinging that makes submarine life more difficult.

    Doing what it did during the exercises while failing to find a single SSK.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:13 pm

    I hope whatever carrier the russians made it will not repeat this fatal flaw of not having credible defence against lone ssks(aside from its escorts and its airwing which as the above images show are deficient). Systems like Paket and the sattelite based submarine detctor would be essential esp. now that even a small kilo size sub has the stealth and the punch to destroy an ac behind the rest of the carrier group.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  ahmedfire on Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:15 pm

    GarryB wrote:So they are saying having a short range low speed anti ship missile that even the most basic 30mm gatling can shoot down that is actually not that cheap (Harpoons actually cost more than Yakhonts) is an advantage?
    We can't consider it as an advantage but they said no need to develop missiles like Russian ones, it's because they have other strong points to control the situation ,as I mentioned before the US navy airforce and submarines "as they said" have strong hands to face Russian submarines that threaten US carriers,

    A data link between ASW helos and carriers and F-18 or F-35 could make that F-18 to go farther from the carrier and shot some anti-submarine--anti ships missiles to counter the threat against their carriers , ofcourse the Russian defences are pretty good but we are talking in a theoretical scenario so the others have right to bet on their power .

    From 2008 there are news they working on anti super__hyper sonic missiles on their carrier group defences
    http://stevenmcollins.com/WordPress/?p=336

    They also actually fear these Russian killers
    http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/February/Pages/ProliferationofCruiseMissilesSparksConcernAboutUSAirDefenses.aspx

    Strong EW may be a solution for them

    http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/aerospace-defense-blog/2013/07/how-vulnerable-are-u-s-navy-vessels-to-advanced-anti-ship-cruise-missiles.html

    Thanks
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  ahmedfire on Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:24 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:I would truly be glad to know who
    I actually can't remember , it was a year ago when they talked about something like that ,

    Mindstorm wrote:Oh yes, yes sure..... Razz Razz
    But it is just an exercise , you can't bet to do that in a real war Wink 


    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Austin on Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:27 pm

    Victor during exercises not all systems come into play due to opsec reason , Exercise is more representative of tactics/joint-ops then capability of weapon system or sensors , because these always remain a secret.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Viktor on Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:55 pm

    Austin wrote:Victor during exercises not all systems come into play due to opsec reason , Exercise is more representative of tactics/joint-ops then capability of weapon system or sensors , because these always remain a secret.
    Perhaps, but than again, the same could be said about the sub too thumbsup

    Remember this Austin. Old German sub in the hands of SA submariners sinked several NATO ships while evading all their attempts to even find it let alone sink it.


    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:03 pm

    Austin wrote:Mindstorm, It is really hard to say looking at these two pic of US Navy Carrier on crosshair of periscope within 8000 years perhaps in some NATO exercise and say with confidence that the same will be true in real war. Since we also do not know the terms and condition of these exercises.


    Obviously we know the condition of this exercise : it was a "free-play" exercise (meaning no type of limit at all in employment of any system or tactic by part of Blue and OPFOR sides ) and it is the exact reason for which this type of exercise is conducted only in very "safe" adn far waters (outside direct ELINT range of enemy Navies ...Wink )

    From Navy Times :


    Anti-sub training goes global in TR workups

    By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer

    NORFOLK, Va. — Iran and China operate lethally quiet diesel-electric submarines, carrier cripplers and the scourge of the surface fleet. Thankfully, so do navies from such South American nations as Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Chile. And under a seven-year-old agreement with the U.S. Navy, their diesel-electric subs regularly train in fleet exercises as opposing forces.

    From Monday through the end of the month, the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group and the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group will engage in Operation Brimstone, their pre-deployment joint task force exercise, off the southeastern U.S.

    Lurking below throughout the free-play exercise will be the Peruvian diesel-electric sub Arica.

    Juan Fernandez, a former U.S. submariner, runs the Navy’s Diesel Electric Submarine Initiative, which arranges for and funds subs like the Arica to simulate undersea killers.

    “It definitely has elevated the difficulty and realism of our fleet training events,” he said. “If I can bleed more in a training scenario, the less I bleed in a real war.”

    The Arica will be the 17th sub from South America to take part in fleet exercises under the DESI program. Seven U.S. surface combatants also will operate as an opposing force during Brimstone.

    The Italian Type 212 submarine Salvatore Todaro, a German-designed diesel-electric sub with air-independent propulsion, also will join the exercise’s opposing force.....

    If you want a good read on what is a free-play exercise and the value of this low level excuse for the historical very poor performances of CVBGs against submarines even only at........... VERY SHORT TORPEDO RANGE
    please read entirely this article (it cite also the famous statement of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt saying that ,with the advent of Soviet high supersonic long range AShMs, US Navy would have lost a conventional war against the Soviets already since '70 years Wink ).


    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18023250/Is-the-USN-Obsolete



    Austin wrote:If Oscar like submarine tries to use stand off missile like Granit then it will too face formidable barrage of SM2,Aster or similar missile with Electronic Jamming and Soft countermeasures ( Soft/Hard Kill ) .......so all Oscar can do is to fire their missile using long stand off range of Granit and hope it manages to penetrate AD assets and hit the target ....call it Spray and Pray.
    Yes, a pair of Oscar class anywhere within an area bigger than 12.000 :1 in comparison than that allowing those submarines to engage aircraft carriers ,destroyers and submarines with theirs torpedo, can deliver a coordinated attack with "Granit" and tube launched "Kalibr" all armored ,capable of swarm attack ,equipped with active/passive ECM/ECCM, capable of maneuver very violently and leaving ,to defending side, less that 1/5 of the time window useful at execute an hard/soft kill before the deadly impact.

    Yes ,this would be the "spray".....but i highly doubt that the "pray" would come from the crew of those Oscar class.  Wink 





    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Austin on Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:27 pm

    Mindstorm I will read those article but two quick points to be made.

    1 ) Since the late 90's the advent of C4ISR and Revolution in Information Warfare in the USN has made it possible to have real time information from all asset integrated into one ...... the quantum leap in communication has helped integration of on board and off board submarine from all asset Ships, Air and Submarine into one single picture , this makes USN very capable in detecting missile as soon as it gets launched .......giving it a very big window to intercept with all asset it has.

    So what Admiral Elmo Zumwalt mentioned in 70's is not really valid now .......due to quantum jump in capabilities and supersonic missile has been the same since 70 except it got smaller and perhaps a bit faster.

    2 ) Regarding Oscar its very valid , so USN wont wait for Oscar to launch its missile but would pro-actively go and hunt for it and destroy as much of those asset as possible ....so goes with Russian SSBN.

    May be 15 years from now with planned sustained funding Russian Navy will be at a qualatitively different level then it is today but if you talk of today , the RuN is much outclassed by USN this is due to lack of funding in past two decades.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm