Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:06 am

    The US wont even fly F-22s in airspace with S-400s I don't see this confrontational US you keep talking about that can whip Russias ass with just SAMs.

    Where were they when Georgia was getting dumped on?

    Why aren't they driving the Russian Carriers out of the Med to protect their head hunting terrorist buddies in Syria?

    And if it wasn't going to go nuclear why were a quarter of all large missiles on Soviet ships armed with nuclear warheads... that is anti ship, anti sub, and anti aircraft missiles BTW...

    SM-6 has a range about 450km vs Kh-22 500km range, sounds a lot like the Tu-22 can launch from safe range to me

    Just as importantly the upgrades to the Tu-22M3M should make it rather more competitive including new models of missile like the Kh-32 (faster and longer range) and the improved models of Kh-15, and of course the near future introduction of the hypersonic Zircon...


    _________________
    “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
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3203
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:38 pm

    OminousSpudd wrote:James Bond was a bit before my time sorry. He's not as iconic among my generation, try Jason Bourne. pirat

    Hahaha, you know out of all the stupid s**t I hear out of you young un's, this one one has to take the Pulitzer.

    Jason Bourne? How is it possible to compare your Maaaaaaaaatt Daaaaaaaamon to such an iconic and legendary in the world of film series of movies - as James Bond?



    This is the most ludicrous rubbish I heard all week.

    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 877
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  OminousSpudd on Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:38 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:James Bond was a bit before my time sorry. He's not as iconic among my generation, try Jason Bourne. pirat

    Hahaha, you know out of all the stupid s**t I hear out of you young un's, this one one has to take the Pulitzer.

    Jason Bourne? How is it possible to compare your Maaaaaaaaatt Daaaaaaaamon to such an iconic and legendary in the world of film series of movies - as James Bond?



    This is the most ludicrous rubbish I heard all week.

    What can I say, welcome to generation snowflake...
    Poncy British twat, or gungho Yankee, I don't actually give a fuck mate.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3203
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:55 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:Poncy British twat, or gungho Yankee, I don't actually give a fuck mate.

    I'm neither, matey clown
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 877
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:36 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:Poncy British twat, or gungho Yankee, I don't actually give a fuck mate.

    I'm neither, matey clown
    Yes, well that's pretty clear. I was referring to the movie characters... I really couldn't care less.

    You'll have to excuse me from this invigorating and worthwhile conversation.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3203
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Russia can handily counter the US Navy with its huge stockpiles of ASMs and launch platforms for them; it doesn't really need anything else.

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:04 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Isos wrote:Russia wanted Mistral  and would be using them today if there wasn't sanctions.

    But when I say Mistral I mean something of it class or little bit bigger. Not specially the Mistral class. I mean an amphibious ship.

    They can carry " 16 NH90 or Tiger helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 vehicles including 13 AMX Leclerc tanks, or a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion,[3] and 450 soldiers"

    A mig is similar in size to a NH90 helicopter. So you can have 10 helicopters and 6 Mig on it. The capacity for troop won't be changed as they are not in the same hangars. If you want to use it in the open sea for naval battle and NOT for a landing you can fit easily at least 12 Mig 29 or more if you built a bigger "Mistral" of let's say 230m, that's modularity.

    12 MiGs wont control a whole country... even a third world one.

    That means 3 CAP of four aircraft, so you can control one piece of air space 24/7 assuming no losses with three rotating teams of 4 aircraft.

    In other words you can fly over the landing area and that is about it.

    And if those 12 MiGs are operating from your Mistral class ship that means no helicopters... transport or support so those MiGs are flying combat air patrol and CAS missions...


    That's what I said. They can't control a country, they can just be used in some situations like retaking an Island or attacking some strategical targets or helping a landing by attacking deeper. Even K won't be enough to control a country ... Even US needs more than 1 to control Afghanistan ...

    British carriers allowed them to take an Island, they would never allow them to control Argentina if they wanted to.


    I hope you understood me. I'm not saying it's a magical ships that will replace carriers. I'm just saying that big amphibious ships have the place needed to give them more capabilities by adding some fighters on it (not replacing all its helicopters but a mix of them) and giving a second role for high sea deployment against other navy by having it's small number of fighter patroling and giving them better visibility. Japan navy is planning to do this with it's F-35 BTW. Even fiting one Mig is giving it a enormous advantage over a navy that is not or can't employ its aviation during a battle far from homeland.

    Imagine you confront 2 navies: 5 destroyers against 5 destroyers. They will be affected by radar range and missile range. Now you send your amphibious ships with 2 Mig-29 on it

    >> It becames   5 destroyers + 2 Mig-29 radars (300km against destroyers) + a better picture of the battlefield + fast moving vectors armed with anti ship missiles which can be carried in big numbers on the amphibious ship and rearmed AGAINST 5 destroyers.

    Even if you are facing a US carrier having 12 Mig-29 can be usefull to intercept attack by giving the position of the Harpoons to the ships and destroying some Hornets AND lunching surprise air attacks from long range.

    If you don't have the money for a big modern carrier, a cheap basic ship lunching modern fighters is really enough.

    It's cute you think 12 Migs will stand up to the Grouping of Aircraft on one of my countries carriers.....

    Russia would be to be insane to challenge us in the open ocean.

    Russia, unless we are talking about VTOL aircraft putting any aircraft on a ship like this, is stupid.

    That also removes the Choppers which is the entire reason the ships are built.

    Sorry your logic makes no sense here, these ships do not need fighters and that would be beyond counter-productive for them. End of the day what you think is a good idea is a silly idea.

    WW2 escort carriers had on average 30 plus planes.

    Pre WW2 Escort carriers were beyond useless in the war with their maybe eight planes at best.

    Russia can handily counter the US Navy with its huge stockpiles of ASMs and launch platforms for them; it doesn't really need anything else.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos on Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:28 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.

    I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.

    Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.

    Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.

    Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.

    Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.

    Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.

    That alone tells me all I need to know.

    If Russia faces US navy they sure won't fight on open seas. But that's not an argument at all. The world isn't thinking about US anytime they do something. I suggested an idea which in my opinion would be good.

    Brits reconquired the Island ... BTW they lost their ships against two Super Etandard armed with 2 exocets Argentinians didn't need 10 carriers for that.

    Juan Carlos can't fit Migs just VSTOL fighters as it ski jump would be on the landing area of the mig which is dangerous. They would have an oversized ship without the fighters on it. Harriers are British.



    You navy is not number 1 at all. You oblige other countries to give you all the support you need and more you oblige them to fight for you. What would you do against china or Russia without Japan, corea, australia and EU ? Nothing. Nor you would have done anything in Afghanistan or Irak.

    Look how french Rafales destroyed your F-16 in exercices, how an indian Kilo class destroyed a Los angeles class in exercices, how french nuc subs destroyed a carrier group in exercices, how israeli F-16/15 destroyed your F-18 in exercices, how Kornets destroyed Abrams, how a Phalanx shot on a friendly ship during training ... You, US in general,  should stop thinking that your untouchable. There were much powerfull empires during their time than you are today that ended very badly.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1085
    Points : 1085
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:33 am

    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.

    I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.

    Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.

    Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.

    Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.

    Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.

    Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.

    That alone tells me all I need to know.

    If Russia faces US navy they sure won't fight on open seas. But that's not an argument at all. The world isn't thinking about US anytime they do something. I suggested an idea which in my opinion would be good.

    Brits reconquired the Island ... BTW they lost their ships against two Super Etandard armed with 2 exocets Argentinians didn't need 10 carriers for that.

    Juan Carlos can't fit Migs just VSTOL fighters as it ski jump would be on the landing area of the mig which is dangerous. They would have an oversized ship without the fighters on it. Harriers are British.



    You navy is not number 1 at all. You oblige other countries to give you all the support you need and more you oblige them to fight for you. What would you do against china or Russia without Japan, corea, australia and EU ? Nothing. Nor you would have done anything in Afghanistan or Irak.

    Look how french Rafales destroyed your F-16 in exercices, how an indian Kilo class destroyed a Los angeles class in exercices, how french nuc subs destroyed a carrier group in exercices, how israeli F-16/15 destroyed your F-18 in exercices, how Kornets destroyed Abrams, how a Phalanx shot on a friendly ship during training ... You, US in general,  should stop thinking that your untouchable. There were much powerfull empires during their time than you are today that ended very badly.

    holy shit, that was awesome! Love your post.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 704
    Points : 724
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:37 am

    flamming_python wrote:Russia can handily counter the US Navy with its huge stockpiles of ASMs and launch platforms for them; it doesn't really need anything else.

    Bingo!! With the imminent IOC of hypersonic AShMs, the entire calculus of Capital ship Vs Missile is changing, and probably for good.  The Soviets attempted to neutralise heavy surface ships with mass AShM attack, but in those days the technology wasn't fully up to the job.  Their missiles were certainly destructive, with the potential for a mission-kill on a USN CVN with just a single hit, but they were large and very heavy, requiring large capital ships or huge SSGNs to carry them in significant numbers, their ranges were such that the attacking platform was within range of carrier aviation, and they relied on external target location and mid-course corrections to achieve their range potential.  Electronics and sensors were also relatively cumbersome, limiting reliability and scope for intelligent attack profiles and autonomous target selection/prioritisation (though P-1000/P-700s did implement successful wolf-pack functionality) .

    The situation now is radically different.  Satellites can readily detect capital ships and relay co-ords to firing platforms, and provide course corrections on route.  Advances in navigation allow missiles to proceed under GPS or inertial guidance until they can locate their own targets with multiple sensors types, and improvements in electronics allow smaller missiles to replicate the wolfpack attack modes of their larger earlier cousins.  Improvements in propulsion and fuel efficiency allow greater ranges, particularly for subsonic cruise missiles with efficient turbofans, and the use of a smaller high-supersonic terminal attack stage (like the anti-ship Kalibres) will minimise the chance of interception in the final attack run. Finally, smaller missiles allow their carriers to pack more rounds into a given tonnage, allowing significant attack potential from even small corvette-sized vessels, and even larger salvos from large vessels (eg 72x missiles from an upgraded Pr949AM)

    Now add hypersonics and/or low RCS stealth.....

    These developments are resulting in a paradigm shift in the old Defence Vs Offence equation.  Big ships are increasingly vulnerable to small, fast, evasive and intelligent AShMs, and hypersonics will greatly reduce the window of opportunity for a defense system to react and kill an incoming threat.  Its conceptually clear that trying to protect a large, slow capital ship like a CVN against missile attack is FAR more difficult than attacking it, and as missile technologies improve, the relative difficulty can only increase in the missiles favour.  

    Can this trend be reversed?  IMHO its VERY doubtful.  Much hyped defensive technologies using lasers and rail-guns are just wet-dream fantasies of USN fanboi idiots. Lasers are potentially useful against single missiles but the beam requires adequate time on target to destroy it by localised heating, and the use of heat resistant materials like ceramic claddings in combination with high-supersonic/hypersonic attack speeds will make such VERY difficult to achieve in a real world setting.  Rail guns are a pointless concept as their firing rates are going to be very low, and being a kinetic kill weapon, their efficacy is utterly dependent upon the accuracy of the firing solution and repeatability of projectile ballistics.  It would be like trying to shoot a bullet out of the sky with another smaller bullet....  Good luck with that....

    Final proof of this thesis is that there is a palpable sense of panic in the USN that their vast and expensive CBGs may be rendered obsolete by a proliferation of fast, small, intelligent AShMs that cannot be intercepted by their 70s-era AEGIS system, and for which "new technologies" are less than promising.  I'm happy with that as the USNs loss is the multipolar worlds gain...

    Hmmm... I didn't even mention AShBMs.... theatre-range ballistic terminally-guided anti-ship ordnance... yummy yummy.....

    russia russia russia russia russia russia russia


    Last edited by Big_Gazza on Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:44 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 877
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:42 am

    As a general rule I think it is quite obvious that Russia would avoid any open-water scenarios when talking USN vs. RuN, even if only due to the sheer number of surface vessels the US can employ. However, it is also quite obvious that Russia has dedicated much of its time to countering the US numerical advantage via the development of coastal defenses such as Bastion which provide a large umbrella of protection for Russian vessels to operate within. While having a potential 96 AShMs available is all well and good for AB DDGs, a certain problem presents itself when considering the vulnerability of the now legacy-tier Harpoon, particularly their ToT. Russia/USSR has/had long been aware of this vulnerability, and has developed comprehensive defensive suites, and offensive capabilities in the form of supersonic and now hypersonic AShMs to exploit it. Little, mobile, and hard-hitting seems to be the Russian doctrine at the moment, despite the potential of Lider-class. To me, this seems logical. I think Russia intends to keep a tactical edge as well, unconventional strategy such as the self-contained Klub-K really could make quite a difference in how a modern sea battle is fought.

    I recall an event that happened during USN-RNZN drills, where one of our ANZAC-class essentially terminated multiple US vessels simply by exploiting the geography of a nearby island and operating outside of the RNZN's mandated strategy of the drill. Impressive for a ship with next to no offensive capabilities aside from torpedoes. The Americans claimed we cheated.

    One may be reminded of prior military adventures that ended in failure when simple mass and traditional doctrine met with entirely unconventional enemies. Obviously, the Blitzkrieg as an example, although not a doctrine per-se but simply the result of Germany embracing mobility and communications to overcome traditional defenses. Imperial Russia's use of counter trench warfare e.g. tunneling to the enemy, allowed for quick gains during the early days of WWI. Gaius Marius during Roman times etc.

    EDIT: Gazza beat me to the chase.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 704
    Points : 724
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:55 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:While having a potential 96 AShMs available is all well and good for AB DDGs

    Well, only if the AB doesn't carry any land attack rounds, and chooses not to carry SAMs.... (!!)

    OminousSpudd wrote:The Americans claimed we cheated.

    Yep, the US does like to ensure a positive outcome by hamstringing the "other" side during exercises. Their childish cries of outrage when a "vassal" nation dares to think outside the (imposed) limitations is like music to my ears! Very Happy

    Finally, unconventional tactics can be game-winners, but can also be abject failures. Hannibal crossing the Alps with Elephants, or Iran's attempt to cross the Hawr Al Hawiza marsh with pontoons were creative but ultimately disastrous.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 877
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:21 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:Well, only if the AB doesn't carry any land attack rounds, and chooses not to carry SAMs.... (!!)
    Hence why I said potential. Having 96 Harpoons isn't going to help much against land-based defenses either. All-in-all, operating near Russian coastal waters will be a tad hair-raising, considering the very Russian approach of not putting all eggs in one basket. Cool

    Big_Gazza wrote: Finally, unconventional tactics can be game-winners, but can also be abject failures.  Hannibal crossing the Alps with Elephants, or Iran's attempt to cross the Hawr Al Hawiza marsh with pontoons were creative but ultimately disastrous.
    Agreed, one can find just as many strategic disasters as successes, I was cherry picking. Hannibal's elephants failed, but it was Carthage bureaucracy that called him home and stopped him in his tracks. One could also say it was the unconventional Roman strategy of attacking the enemy at home rather than committing all forces to the defending of their territory that ultimately brought defeat to Hannibal. Very Happy
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10210
    Points : 10698
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  George1 on Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:43 am

    ok you all have gone off-topic so discussion continues here


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 514
    Points : 518
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:42 pm

    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.

    I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.

    Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.

    Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.

    Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.

    Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.

    Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.

    That alone tells me all I need to know.

    If Russia faces US navy they sure won't fight on open seas. But that's not an argument at all. The world isn't thinking about US anytime they do something. I suggested an idea which in my opinion would be good.

    Brits reconquired the Island ... BTW they lost their ships against two Super Etandard armed with 2 exocets Argentinians didn't need 10 carriers for that.

    Juan Carlos can't fit Migs just VSTOL fighters as it ski jump would be on the landing area of the mig which is dangerous. They would have an oversized ship without the fighters on it. Harriers are British.



    You navy is not number 1 at all. You oblige other countries to give you all the support you need and more you oblige them to fight for you. What would you do against china or Russia without Japan, corea, australia and EU ? Nothing. Nor you would have done anything in Afghanistan or Irak.

    Look how french Rafales destroyed your F-16 in exercices, how an indian Kilo class destroyed a Los angeles class in exercices, how french nuc subs destroyed a carrier group in exercices, how israeli F-16/15 destroyed your F-18 in exercices, how Kornets destroyed Abrams, how a Phalanx shot on a friendly ship during training ... You, US in general,  should stop thinking that your untouchable. There were much powerfull empires during their time than you are today that ended very badly.

    Lets make a list of words you are trying to put in my mouth

    Rafales ARE much better than F-16's. I never claimed the F-16 was some super amazing aircraft, did I?.

    When did I say you need ten aircraft carriers to sink navy ships? That has nothing to do with what I said?. I said the brits lost more warships and they would have lost a shit ton more if Argentina had half decent technology the only thing that saved those carriers was the lack of technology.

    When did I say my navy was number one in all things? I said it is number one yes and it is. If you doubt that then your are blinded by fanboyism.

    When did I say my navy could not be touched? I said we would take losses, just we would kill more ships in return. It's cute you say this considering my remarks about the Zirzon and how I say Hypersonic ship missiles render basic Defense pointless.

    Now you try and put words in my mouth again and I will ignore you in the future, I am all for an honest chat not some trying to pull what you are.

    Now onto your other points.

    F-18's were designed to strike ground targets and ships, Carrier-based aircraft are not better than dedicated Air Sup fighters for clear reasons that Multi-role comes with a cost.

    Put you SU-33's against an F-18 see how that goes, has for the Mig-29 I'll wait and see I have yet to see any real capable action from it. It's Track record in syria proved pretty shitty so far.

    Electric subs are virtually noiseless machines and Nuclear subs aren't that Los Angelos was also an older one not a new block.

    The french sub merely locked on and hit a button (a simulated hit), that torpedo would not have hit if it was fired.

    True but they could have easyily redesigned it front some with little hassle if they wanted to turn it into a semi carrier. So your point is quite moot here.

    What would we do against Russia? depends is the Russian fleet near their coast? in which case nothing.

    If we caught them on open ocean goodbye Russian fleet. China would stand a more fair chance really then Russia would on the open ocean but it would still be the death of them also.

    Near their coast not much.

    Your idea is not good has you cannot stick fighters on an helio carrier without basically redesigning the entire ship and harming it's Ability to land troops. so no sorry no offense but your idea is silly and shows a lack of knowledge. Russia Navy doesn't think it's a good idea, US navy doesn't Chinese doesn't.

    So yes excuse me if I do not agree when professionals do not also.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos on Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:36 pm

    Well, read again the discussion and you will see that I didn't say they should build them to face US carriers (I actually said it won't be usefull to face it just to have a better picture of the air battlefield and could intercept harpoons and hornet coming too close) ... You were the first one to start to put words in my mouth ...


    Till you win a war by yourself against anything other than farmers with Ak-47 (from the vietnam war till today you oponents are just using this weapon BTW) you won't be number 1 in anything. And in the middle of the pacific without your foreign bases US navy won't be that powerfull. 1 Torpedo or 1 missile in your carrier and its destroyed because of the ammunition it carries and all the jetfuel. Bye Bye hornets then russian destroyers can shot at your destroyers all day, you totaly lack antiship missiles on them. Few harpoons won't damage Ru Navy.


    Professional agree with it because Thai navy, spanish navy, English navy, Japanese navy, corean navy used or use or will use similar ships. Of course if you have a budget of more than 100 billion you will go for a true carrier but if you are limited in money.

    avatar
    RTN

    Posts : 189
    Points : 174
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Protect ships from air attacks?

    Post  RTN on Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:Russian carriers are to defend the ships. They are currently looking at giving their aircraft better ground attack performance, but primarily they are fighter interceptors to protect the ships the carrier operates with... if a ground target needs to be attack the ships will use their long range cruise missiles to strike ground targets at extended range at no risk to pilots.

    Protect ships from air attacks? But Russian ships..frigates, cruisers, destroyers already have SAMs. They can protect themselves. Similarly they also have anti submarine warfare capabilities.

    Simply having a carrier to defend ships no longer makes any sense in this day & age.

    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos on Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:46 pm

    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Russian carriers are to defend the ships. They are currently looking at giving their aircraft better ground attack performance, but primarily they are fighter interceptors to protect the ships the carrier operates with... if a ground target needs to be attack the ships will use their long range cruise missiles to strike ground targets at extended range at no risk to pilots.

    Protect ships from air attacks? But Russian ships..frigates, cruisers, destroyers already have SAMs. They can protect themselves. Similarly they also have anti submarine warfare capabilities.

    Simply having a carrier to defend ships no longer makes any sense in this day & age.


    Even Russian SAM can be overwhelmed by low flying missiles. In this case you have a defences range of 40km. Soviet navy had lot of ships and missiles, that not the case of Russia. Few desroyers and few frigates, 3 Cruisers and corvettes.

    A US carrier can send 60 F-18 each one armed with 4 harpoons, that means 240 missiles.

    But against a normal navy, they will face ships armed with 8 subsonic missiles so SAMs will be enough. Specially Tors and Pantsirs.


    Last edited by Isos on Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1331
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:27 pm

    Isos wrote:Even Russian SAM can be overwhelmed by low flying missiles. In this case you have a defences range of 40km. Soviet navy had lot of ships and missiles, that not the case of Russia. Few desroyers and few frigates, 3 Cruisers and frigates.

    A US carrier can send 60 F-18 each one armed with 4 harpoons, that means 240 missiles.

    But against a normal navy, they will face ships armed with 8 subsonic missiles so SAMs will be enough. Specially Tors and Pantsirs.

    Correct, no matter how good Russian Air-defenses are, even if it can handle all the Missiles launched from air, for them to then also deal with missiles from enemy ships as well is just too much, for that reason an Aircraft Carrier is absolutely necessary, end of story.

    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:53 pm

    Isos wrote:
    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Russian carriers are to defend the ships. They are currently looking at giving their aircraft better ground attack performance, but primarily they are fighter interceptors to protect the ships the carrier operates with... if a ground target needs to be attack the ships will use their long range cruise missiles to strike ground targets at extended range at no risk to pilots.

    Protect ships from air attacks? But Russian ships..frigates, cruisers, destroyers already have SAMs. They can protect themselves. Similarly they also have anti submarine warfare capabilities.

    Simply having a carrier to defend ships no longer makes any sense in this day & age.


    Even Russian SAM can be overwhelmed by low flying missiles. In this case you have a defences range of 40km. Soviet navy had lot of ships and missiles, that not the case of Russia. Few desroyers and few frigates, 3 Cruisers and corvettes.

    A US carrier can send 60 F-18 each one armed with 4 harpoons, that means 240 missiles.

    But against a normal navy, they will face ships armed with 8 subsonic missiles so SAMs will be enough. Specially Tors and Pantsirs.

    It can't get close to shores, so all it can do is to stay away from the Russian shores at least for 1000 km.


    Russia doesn't have shipping lanes to protect.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:54 pm

    Protect ships from air attacks? But Russian ships..frigates, cruisers, destroyers already have SAMs. They can protect themselves. Similarly they also have anti submarine warfare capabilities.

    The Russian Army has SAMs of all types, yet it operates with the support of airbases of the Russian AF and Aerospace Defence Forces that include their own aircraft and radars to extend the reach and vision of the Armed forces.

    If you are sitting in the middle of the ocean and you detect a contact 400km away in your Frigate... what do you do?

    With carrier support you can alert the carrier and get an aircraft to go and inspect the target... otherwise you have to make the decision to shoot it down or not with little to no information.

    You could use up all your SAMs on drones because you think they might be threats... an aircraft could shoot a drone down with cannon or short range cheap AAMs.

    Aircraft are much more powerful and flexible in terms of reach and vision and offer a large ring of protection around a group of ships that SAMs just cannot offer on their own.

    Simply having a carrier to defend ships no longer makes any sense in this day & age.

    I would say the opposite... the performance of aircraft and air launched anti ship weapons means not having a carrier to defend ships no longer makes sense in this day and age...



    _________________
    “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
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 514
    Points : 518
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:04 pm

    RTN wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Russian carriers are to defend the ships. They are currently looking at giving their aircraft better ground attack performance, but primarily they are fighter interceptors to protect the ships the carrier operates with... if a ground target needs to be attack the ships will use their long range cruise missiles to strike ground targets at extended range at no risk to pilots.

    Protect ships from air attacks? But Russian ships..frigates, cruisers, destroyers already have SAMs. They can protect themselves. Similarly they also have anti submarine warfare capabilities.

    Simply having a carrier to defend ships no longer makes any sense in this day & age.


    Those ships do not exist in high numbers and Russia could never field enough to fully protect themselves unless they sent 80 percent of their navy to one area to fight off a mere portion of the US Navy.

    Carriers change depending on who uses them, strike carriers are the most common yes. However, on the end all carriers are pretty much the same what makes them change is what is on their flight deck.

    Any carrier can be used for defensive and offensive means with it's squadrons.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:02 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Those ships do not exist in high numbers and Russia could never field enough to fully protect themselves unless they sent 80 percent of their navy to one area to fight off a mere portion of the US Navy.

    Carriers change depending on who uses them, strike carriers are the most common yes. However, on the end all carriers are pretty much the same what makes them change is what is on their flight deck.

    Any carrier can be used for defensive and offensive means with it's squadrons.

    Can you explain how the US can use carriers to attack Russia?

    And what part of the world Russia needs its navy to protect her interest?
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 514
    Points : 518
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:25 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Those ships do not exist in high numbers and Russia could never field enough to fully protect themselves unless they sent 80 percent of their navy to one area to fight off a mere portion of the US Navy.

    Carriers change depending on who uses them, strike carriers are the most common yes. However, on the end all carriers are pretty much the same what makes them change is what is on their flight deck.

    Any carrier can be used for defensive and offensive means with it's squadrons.

    Can you explain how the US can use carriers to attack Russia?

    And what part of the world Russia needs its navy to protect her interest?

    Well, that is a hard question to answer and no one man can really answer. So I'll give you some information on idea the navy considered a valid strike plan, one of many mind you there is procs and cons with every plan none is perfect.

    I know I am going to get heat for this remark, because this is a pro-russian forum but hey you asked.

    This is a question people like me ask us most of the time, many admirals, and generals, Intelligence agencies ponder this. General versions of this information can be found easy online

    However in order to attack Russia first thing is first the coastal defenses need to be destroyed. The Russian submarine fleet would have to neutralize before this operation was conducted.

    first thing first would be the Pacific fleet, One idea was to group air and submarines forces with a couple of Strike groups within Japan under the guise of training or a joint exercise (we have done this before well just not with the intention of attacking them, so it's not like this is a first). From there we sound out subs to lure the Pacifics fleets subs into chasing decoys or tailing our subs thinking we don't know you are there.

    At this point, the idea was to have ohios launch their tomahawks in a massive saturation attack against the anchored Pacific fleet and launch planes in two waves the first wave would be to engage whatever airforces Russia could mobilize within fast order the second conduct precision strike attacks against key targets. Russia would not be able to defend the Pacific fleet from say 2000 missiles perhaps more we could fire that many easy. In such an occasion. A surprise Ambush would be the only choice we would never want to engage the Russians when the fleet knew about it.

    Because then they would never leave the coastline.

    The black sea fleet well the standard plan is to bottle them up they cannot get out of the black sea without going through that narrow channel and that channel would be a massive killing zone. I know some people here will say "Bottling up the black sea fleet you stupid?" and no if they cannot get into open ocean they are useless, only people who have not served or are armchair admirals would think bottling up the black sea fleet is dumb, in fact it is by far the most tactical choice. If they want to come out they will lose most of their ships to even have a chance of getting one through.

    The northern fleet well we would wait to tell Winter with their movements restricted by mother nature, you could easily set up kill zones for when the ice melted and they tried to leave.

    We would never seek to destroy the entire Russian navy just make a hole for a landing area and the Pacific fleet is the best choice. By preventing the black sea fleet from leaving the channel and the northern restricted they would not be able to get reinforcements in time. The Pacific fleet can easily be destroyed by my countries navy even in if they are in dock. With part of the Russian fleet now destroyed, we would simply make that area a no mans land any ships the Russians send would be sunk, their land based defenses are so spread apart if one area was focused down they would crack soon enough and if they tried to gather we could just shift to another area.

    Infact the Soviets could have destroyed our carrier groups in a week should they have launched the attack, What was the estimated time by our guys 3 days at sea and one week at docks.

    Our carriers would only be used to exploit weak points in Russian defense, we would pick them apart. In this case, our carriers would be used like surgical knives cutting away weak pieces one after another.

    Has for what I think Russia needs to defend herself? 4 carriers, 15 DDs, 35 frigates, 70 corvettes, 50 attack submarines, 15 Ballistic missile submarines, 6 Surf class ships with armed with mainly sub hunting choppers to say the least.

    Mainly fast long range interceptors MIG-31 like planes, armed with AA missiles. Many Planes like SU-35s, A shit ton of ASW.

    Long range missiles detection systems and tons of em, a very very detailed sonar net that could track submarines from Japan to their coast.

    They also need to increase their coastal defense by 3x it's current amount.

    If they used all of this in perfect conjunction with each other they would be fairly immune to any naval attack







    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos on Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:02 pm

    Amateur plan.

    First, neither Japan neither Turkey would help you in starting WW3 and risking nuclear strikes. Japanese already want your soldiers to leave the country because they are fed up with you.

    Tacticly speaking that's just bullshit. Russia has an airforce and every russian fighter can lunch Kh31 missiles. So your landing forces would be dead before reaching the coast even if you destroy their navy and coastal batteries. And if you put 2000 tomahawks in the Pacific ships that means almost 0 anti air missiles to defend your self.

    While you wait for winter, russian tanks would be in Berlin and your bases in western Europe would be desrtoyed by salvos oof Kalibr Kh 101 and iskander.

    Imagine what Nato air defences forces would do against 1000 or 2000 kalibr if Russian IADS can't counter the same number ...

    Your carriers won't go near Russia because like I said their fighter can lunch all day Kh-31, shot and run tactic, and R-37 against your awacs.

    Your plan would work if Russians don't do anything. The thing is that Russia would do the war with every thing they have. They don't put all their eggs in the same basket like you do with you carriers.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 514
    Points : 518
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:25 pm

    Isos wrote:Amateur plan.

    First, neither Japan neither Turkey would help you in starting WW3 and risking nuclear strikes. Japanese already want your soldiers to leave the country because they are fed up with you.

    Tacticly speaking that's just bullshit. Russia has an airforce and every russian fighter can lunch Kh31 missiles. So your landing forces would be dead before reaching the coast even if you destroy their navy and coastal batteries. And if you put 2000 tomahawks in the Pacific ships that means almost 0 anti air missiles to defend your self.

    While you wait for winter, russian tanks would be in Berlin and your bases in western Europe would be desrtoyed by salvos oof Kalibr Kh 101 and iskander.

    Imagine what Nato air defences forces would do against 1000 or 2000 kalibr if Russian IADS can't counter the same number ...

    Your carriers won't go near Russia because like I said their fighter can lunch all day Kh-31, shot and run tactic, and R-37 against your awacs.

    Your plan would work if Russians don't do anything. The thing is that Russia would do the war with every thing they have. They don't put all their eggs in the same basket like you do with you carriers.

    amateur plan coming from an armchair admiral cute, well comrade come to Syria we could use your expert advice!~ this was just a mere brain storm. I said there is pros and cons

    Quite funny, for one I did not add NATO into the Equation...now if we add NATO then they could just steam roll all the way to Moscow before Russia starts dropping atomic warheads. There is no need for any plan at that point russia has two options 1. Lose the war 2. Help turn the world into a radioactive rock

    I also did not comment on land forces this is an argument you added in (getting sick of your shit, love saying I said stuff I didn't eh) for the record even if Russia could seize Berlin (which they would never get that far) at that point it becomes a war of attrition and last I checked......NAtO has more men to send to the slaugther then Russia and we can out produce them but hey keep talking I guess.

    Or are you silly enough to think Russia could Defeat all of NATO in a conventional fight....because if you do shut up you know nothing about war because even Putin himself has said "You'd have to be insane to take on NATO" and he is right Russia alone would lose against NATO and that is not up for debate.

    Japan wants us off a certain Island so cute lie but you are wrong here and you can bottle up the BSF without being in turkish waters. Also, we can conduct strikes from certain Japanease areas without bringing them in.

    In what dimension can the Russian navy deliver 1k Kalibers at once? none that's what. When they have more ships sure then maybe.

    Russia could not field enough fighters with those missiles to threaten to land troops.

    you know I love when people talk about our carriers like that's the only ship we have..... let me see 63 active DD's, 22 Ticonderoga, 13, virginas, 3 sea wolves, 26 Los class active (late blocks). Just to name some...I get sick of hearing this some people like you, look let me be clear with you. Russian navy would get shit on in a fair fight even if we did not use carriers.

    Now that is just the US if I add NATO's navy has a whole then....lol it's a joke at that point.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:11 pm