Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Share
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 605
    Points : 609
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:46 pm

    Navy to answer your question.

    Depends on which state you're talking about or do you think every single Russian is a pro-killer.

    I never said Japan hates us in some ways, however, the event you're talking about had to do with some soldier (hope they gas him) raping some girl and they want the soldiers off that island. so yes that is a stone cold lie, Japan cannot close our bases legally. Now if they do that illegally well that's a different story.



    Ah...thank you for showing me you know nothing.

    We held Afghan fine, it was when we handed it over to their army they started to fuck up and lose turf. So yeah that's all i needed you to say now I know your full of hot air Mr Armchair General..

    PS I edited my post since you posted.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 489
    Points : 485
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:06 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    ...

    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



    I'm not a military expert, but I suggest to check the maps.

    Where should russia put all of these ships?

    I mean, the best part of the Russian shores no accessible for anyone else than Russia, without heavy icebreaker / ice resistant ships.

    And how an aircraft carrier can help in defence?

    Again, I'm not military expert, but an airfield with a lot of aircraft way superior compared to a carrier for territorial defence.

    The carrier noisy, easy to spot, and needs a lot of repair/maintenance.

    For territorial defence the carrier and the ships are too expensive.

    You can buy 4000 anti ship rocket with 1000-2000 km range from the cost of one carrier.

    few over the horizont radar , maybe few aircraft in the air for ship detection ( I think even Su-34 could be good for ships) and no ship can get closer than 1000 km to the shores.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos on Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:06 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Navy to answer your question.

    Depends on which state you're talking about or do you think every single Russian is a pro-killer.

    I never said Japan hates us in some ways, however, the event you're talking about had to do with some soldier (hope they gas him) raping some girl and they want the soldiers off that island. so yes that is a stone cold lie, Japan cannot close our bases legally. Now if they do that illegally well that's a different story.



    Ah...thank you for showing me you know nothing.

    We held Afghan fine, it was when we handed it over to their army they started to fuck up and lose turf. So yeah that's all i needed you to say now I know your full of hot air Mr Armchair General..

    PS I edited my post since you posted.

    You totally change your post.

    But let's take out Nato from discussion your plan is even less realistic. Japan like I said would never let you use its mainland for such a scenario because of the fear that Russia nuk them. Without your carrier your navy is nothing. Russian ships are immune to Harpoons. The fight would occure near Russia so without nato, no bases for US, so Russia would use air force to attack you. The end.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 489
    Points : 485
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:08 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    I never said Japan hates us in some ways, however, the event you're talking about had to do with some soldier (hope they gas him) raping some girl and they want the soldiers off that island. so yes that is a stone cold lie, Japan cannot close our bases legally. Now if they do that illegally well that's a different story.



    So japan is under US occupation?
    Like Eastern europe was under Soviet occupation?


    Interesting.

    Nice imperium : )

    I'm sure the the psychos in Washington enjoying the power above the life of billions : )




    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 605
    Points : 609
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:27 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    ...

    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



    I'm not a military expert, but I suggest to check the maps.

    Where should russia put all of these ships?

    I mean, the best part of the Russian shores no accessible for anyone else than Russia, without heavy icebreaker / ice resistant ships.

    And how an aircraft carrier can help in defence?

    Again, I'm not military expert, but an airfield with a lot of aircraft way superior compared to a carrier for territorial defence.

    The carrier noisy, easy to spot, and needs a lot of repair/maintenance.

    For territorial defence the carrier and the ships are too expensive.

    You can buy 4000 anti ship rocket with 1000-2000 km range from the cost of one carrier.

    few over the horizont radar , maybe few aircraft in the air for ship detection ( I think even Su-34 could be good for ships) and no ship can get closer than 1000 km to the shores.

    Divided among her fleets.

    Yes and no most of their shoreline cannot be accessed unless you have ice breakers but if war came we would float those out with zero hassle, it's not that we can't build them it's just why would we? we have zero use for those. However, there are areas you can get to without them

    An AC can better protect a grouping of ships then land based missile batteries can.

    Well anything that floats above water is easy to find these days no such thing has stealth ships no matter how much you curve them.

    Land based missiles are stationary easy targets for long range cruise missiles they would be degraded over time.


    ---------

    Not really, Iso is making a lie up, Some areas of Japan do not like us yes that is true however some like us.

    Well my country is not innocent by any means however nor is Russia to be fair. Every country has it's dark areas.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 605
    Points : 609
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:33 pm

    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Navy to answer your question.

    Depends on which state you're talking about or do you think every single Russian is a pro-killer.

    I never said Japan hates us in some ways, however, the event you're talking about had to do with some soldier (hope they gas him) raping some girl and they want the soldiers off that island. so yes that is a stone cold lie, Japan cannot close our bases legally. Now if they do that illegally well that's a different story.



    Ah...thank you for showing me you know nothing.

    We held Afghan fine, it was when we handed it over to their army they started to fuck up and lose turf. So yeah that's all i needed you to say now I know your full of hot air Mr Armchair General..

    PS I edited my post since you posted.

    You totally change your post.

    But let's take out Nato from discussion your plan is even less realistic. Japan, like I said, would never let you use its mainland for such a scenario because of the fear that Russia nuk them. Without your carrier your navy is nothing. Russian ships are immune to Harpoons. The fight would occur near Russia so without nato, no bases for US, so Russia would use air force to attack you. The end.

    The bases we control we can do WHATEVER we want with so again your wrong. We can easily amount a naval attack without those NATO bases goes to show how little you know about my navy.

    .....Now that is a joke...Russians aren't immune to Harpoons...and without our Carriers, we would still beat the Russian navy in it;s current shape no problem in an open waters fight. Seriously dude what's next Russians planes can fly mach 20 billion?.

    This is why I do not like talking to arm chair experts clueless has can be but pretend you know how stuff works and would go down.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 489
    Points : 485
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:35 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    The bases we control we can do WHATEVER we want with so again your wrong. We can easily amount a naval attack without those NATO bases goes to show how little you know about my navy.

    .....Now that is a joke...Russians aren't immune to Harpoons...and without our Carriers, we would still beat the Russian navy in it;s current shape no problem in an open waters fight. Seriously dude what's next Russians planes can fly mach 20 billion?.

    This is why I do not like talking to arm chair experts clueless has can be but pretend you know how stuff works and would go down.

    Your writing smells like propaganda.


    You have many factual error, too many to hunt down all of them in short notice.

    Seems like all of them hold together by faith ( or the good work of the motivational/politics officers)


    Same guess, the US is not in the same position as it was in 1946.

    The world changed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1_AD_to_2008_AD_trends_in_%25_GDP_contribution_by_major_economies_of_the_world.png
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 605
    Points : 609
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:58 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    The bases we control we can do WHATEVER we want with so again your wrong. We can easily amount a naval attack without those NATO bases goes to show how little you know about my navy.

    .....Now that is a joke...Russians aren't immune to Harpoons...and without our Carriers, we would still beat the Russian navy in it;s current shape no problem in an open waters fight. Seriously dude what's next Russians planes can fly mach 20 billion?.

    This is why I do not like talking to arm chair experts clueless has can be but pretend you know how stuff works and would go down.

    Your writing smells like propaganda.


    You have many factual error, too many to hunt down all of them in short notice.

    Seems like all of them hold together by faith ( or the good work of the motivational/politics officers)


    Same guess, the US is not in the same position as it was in 1946.

    The world changed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1_AD_to_2008_AD_trends_in_%25_GDP_contribution_by_major_economies_of_the_world.png

    scratch Propaganda?

    I happen to think the Russians would win 1v1 in an even ground war if no air forces or ships are involved.

    In the navy department, they lose period sorry, that is fact. Of course, this is a silly topic in general because that war would go nuclear and both countries would be destroyed in the end.

    I was nice enough to answer your question but I can see I made an error alright, lesson learned.
    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1715
    Points : 1872
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  TheArmenian on Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:51 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    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








    Cool story bro.

    Now this thread will go down to the "Talking Bullocks" thread level.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 489
    Points : 485
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:02 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    scratch Propaganda?

    I happen to think the Russians would win 1v1 in an even ground war if no air forces or ships are involved.

    In the navy department, they lose period sorry, that is fact. Of course, this is a silly topic in general because that war would go nuclear and both countries would be destroyed in the end.

    I was nice enough to answer your question but I can see I made an error alright, lesson learned.

    I happen to think the Russians would win 1v1 in an even ground war if no air forces or ships are involved
    considering that the US has no land border with Russia it is not a big feat.

    It is like saying "the mongol navy can win against anyone in the biggest mongol lake "

    This is propaganda.

    Not from you, you just simply well trained and disciplined into the army, to be capable to accept commands and have high morale.

    Saying that " Us has no ice breakers, but if it needs it can make in short time"

    It is not the 40s any more.

    Russia is on par with the US in industrial capacity ( per capita ), and China two-four times bigger than the US.


    Additional interesting thingy, if the US start a war against Russia ( or japan) then in due time the Chinese will fight against the US.

    the landing US units will face Russian and Chinese soldiers.

    That is the case with north korea as well.

    The US will fight with the Chinese army if try to attack north korea.

    And that should be happy time if they stop on the continent, and not at the edge of the Japanese islands.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos on Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:40 pm

    The bases we control we can do WHATEVER we want with so again your wrong. We can easily amount a naval attack without those NATO bases goes to show how little you know about my navy.

    .....Now that is a joke...Russians aren't immune to Harpoons...and without our Carriers, we would still beat the Russian navy in it;s current shape no problem in an open waters fight. Seriously dude what's next Russians planes can fly mach 20 billion?.

    This is why I do not like talking to arm chair experts clueless has can be but pretend you know how stuff works and would go down.

    LOL. "Whatever you want" LOL.

    Russian won't go in open ocean. Just their SSN and Oscar to destroy your Carriers. Then they will just destroy your ships by lunching missiles all day, all night till there is no more left. In your plan you suggested they will be armed with thousand of tomahawks wich means few anti air missiles so it will be far easier for RuAF to destroy them.

    I'm not saying US navy suck. I'm saying that your plan suck.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:48 am

    Russia would not be able to defend the Pacific fleet from say 2000 missiles perhaps more we could fire that many easy.

    Actually I don't think the US could... and even if they did the response for such an attack would be a nuclear response... simply because such an attack could be nothing except the precursor to either nuclear attack or invasion... either of which warrants a nuclear response.

    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 rather doubt the Black Sea Fleet would even try to leave the Black Sea. There would be no point.

    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.

    Just look at Cuba to work out the success rate of a landing... BTW all those FROG-7 launchers in Cuba had 25Kt warheads and would have blunted any US invasion fairly easily. I would suspect nuclear armed Iskanders would be even more effective in the same mission today.

    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.

    You mean new coral reefs for divers to explore...

    Even subsonic Japanese kamikazi pilots managed to get a few hits on US carriers... Onyx will be much more successful.

    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

    Add NATO and you will be talking about it in 30 years time because the germans and french will never agree with the americans...

    .NAtO has more men to send to the slaugther then Russia and we can out produce them but hey keep talking I guess.

    Men, women, and things that neither want to be called men or women... but no stomach for casualties of any kind...

    Not the best for attrition against a well armed well trained enemy.
    ...but that is the problem... the last time the US went up against such an enemy it was the Germans and it took a while before you guys started making headway there too.

    Land based missiles are stationary easy targets for long range cruise missiles they would be degraded over time.

    Which Russian land based missiles are stationary?

    AFAIK only some in Silos are actually stationary.

    I'm not saying US navy suck. I'm saying that your plan suck.

    What I am saying is that western bullshit only spreads so far... WWIII wont be winnable by the US Navy, the Jap navy, or any navy... armies and navies and air forces wont decide WWIII the number of warheads and missiles means no one will win WWIII. Get over it.


    _________________
    “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
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:What I am saying is that western bullshit only spreads so far... WWIII wont be winnable by the US Navy, the Jap navy, or any navy... armies and navies and air forces wont decide WWIII the number of warheads and missiles means no one will win WWIII.  Get over it.

    Conventional wars are decided by conventional capability. There is no assurance to anyone with nukes that they will get to use them. If Japan at some point decides to land and control any of the Kurils, it will be up to the Pacific Fleet to prove its worth. Currently the surface aspect of that fleet is a very sad and bad joke. And this won't change for another decade, even when the few, token corvettes get to be inducted.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1388
    Points : 1389
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:49 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:What I am saying is that western bullshit only spreads so far... WWIII wont be winnable by the US Navy, the Jap navy, or any navy... armies and navies and air forces wont decide WWIII the number of warheads and missiles means no one will win WWIII.  Get over it.

    Conventional wars are decided by conventional capability. There is no assurance to anyone with nukes that they will get to use them. If Japan at some point decides to land and control any of the Kurils, it will be up to the Pacific Fleet to prove its worth. Currently the surface aspect of that fleet is a very sad and bad joke. And this won't change for another decade, even when the few, token corvettes get to be inducted.

    Semantics, we simply go from strategic to tactical nukes.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:12 pm

    Conventional wars are decided by conventional capability. There is no assurance to anyone with nukes that they will get to use them.

    How exactly would Japan stop them from using tactical nuclear weapons?

    Those islands are windswept barren empty places... there was likely more wildlife in the middle of Australia where the UK tested its nukes...

    If Japan at some point decides to land and control any of the Kurils, it will be up to the Pacific Fleet to prove its worth.

    What makes you think they could pull off a surprise invasion like that?

    Such an attack would not be unopposed, and those small units based there would just need to radio the mainland to get enough air support to sink every jap boat in the area... fishing boats included.

    AFAIK there are S-400 batteries there... with 400km range SAM missiles that is a circle 800km across that they can cover...



    _________________
    “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
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1388
    Points : 1389
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    If Japan at some point decides to land and control any of the Kurils, it will be up to the Pacific Fleet to prove its worth.

    What makes you think they could pull off a surprise invasion like that?

    Such an attack would not be unopposed, and those small units based there would just need to radio the mainland to get enough air support to sink every jap boat in the area... fishing boats included.

    AFAIK there are S-400 batteries there... with 400km range SAM missiles that is a circle 800km across that they can cover...

    Wasn't it 600km across?
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:40 am

    600km is the radius of the S-500... the S-400 can reach up to 400km in any direction, north, south, east and west... so put a point on a map and put a dot 400km to its south, a dot 400km to its north and a dot 400km to its east and a dot 400km to its west and then draw a circle that connects those four dots and you get a circle 800km across... diameter = radius x 2.



    _________________
    “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
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos on Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:600km is the radius of the S-500... the S-400 can reach up to 400km in any direction, north, south, east and west... so put a point on a map and put a dot 400km to its south, a dot 400km to its north and a dot 400km to its east and a dot 400km to its west and then draw a circle that connects those four dots and you get a circle 800km across...  diameter = radius x 2.


    Detection range is more. Russia will use them to send fighter beyond the 400 km you are talking
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:37 am

    Very true but the S-400 missiles will cover the distance very rapidly too... far more rapidly than any aircraft or ship.


    _________________
    “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
    Rowdyhorse4

    Posts : 60
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2017-04-25
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Rowdyhorse4 on Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:46 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:What I am saying is that western bullshit only spreads so far... WWIII wont be winnable by the US Navy, the Jap navy, or any navy... armies and navies and air forces wont decide WWIII the number of warheads and missiles means no one will win WWIII.  Get over it.

    Conventional wars are decided by conventional capability. There is no assurance to anyone with nukes that they will get to use them. If Japan at some point decides to land and control any of the Kurils, it will be up to the Pacific Fleet to prove its worth. Currently the surface aspect of that fleet is a very sad and bad joke. And this won't change for another decade, even when the few, token corvettes get to be inducted.

    While I do agree that the conditions of the surface fleet would be no match in a direct combat against the entire Japanese Surface Fleet force...

    The Japanese landing fleet would still need to run through a gauntlet of Submarine wolf packs of the pacific fleet not to mention the current active defenses of the Kuril...
    Not enough to stop an invasion if the Japanese are REALLY THAT dedicated on retaking the kurils...

    But enough to cause massive losses if the Japs don't thread REALLY carefully (in which the line to thread is VERY thin)

    hidden Bastion missile complexes, a Wide array of advanced Anti air and Hidden mobile 130mm Mobile Anti ship artillery systems aren't easy to find...
    Not to mention that the Far East Military Distract air force will not just sit around....

    A Surprise attack will be hard in the first place...
    You'd have to elude the Russian Foreign Intelligence Services and Military Early Warning Radars and recon...

    Assuming that the japs DID manage to surprise the russians...
    I believe they can take the islands over with HEAVY casualties but for how long will they be able to hold it for?
    by then, the Far east will have been reinforced with more military equipment and possibly more surface ships from other Naval districts....
    More planes, More Recon Assets, More Ground troops to possible prepare for a retaking of the Kuril and Invasion of the Japanese Mainland, More Ships, More Subs, More Tactical Ballistic Missiles, more artillery....
    And this is assuming the Japanese preparations for such an attack went UNNOTICED by Russia (Highly unlikely considering the effectiveness of SMERSH/NKVD in WWII and the KGB in the Cold War....)

    Japan would basically turn to a Georgia 2.0....
    Operation Climb Mount Narodnaya would become a reality (For those who plays Wargame: Red Dragon XD)....

    To be honest, i would love to see VDV paratroopers and Helicopters land all over tokyo... It make for very good pictures XD

    P.S: Assuming there are no foreign Nation involvement in this scenario....
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:54 am

    The Japanese have a very capable military and a very impressive navy on paper, but the British force to retake the Falkland islands showed even a fairly weak enemy airforce is a serious threat to a landing force and the number of aircraft the Russians could move to the region would mean no landing force could operate effectively for any period of time.

    The Georgian actions in South Ossetia proved they can be surprised by truly stupid actions, but I really don't think the Japs are that stupid, and I certainly don't think they would be prepared to take those levels of losses just to try to take some barren islands they likely would not be able to hold from a Russian counter attack.

    Even the Argentines lost a few landing vessels to LAW rockets... I would suspect the Russian forces in the region have sufficient weapons of the type needed to stop landing craft and aircraft from operating nearby... and to be able to hold out long enough for support to arrive.

    they have been building up the forces and improving their infrastructure in the last few years including new air strips... now what would they be useful for?

    The biggest mistake the Argentines made in the war of 1982 was not extend the airfield on the Falklands to allow fast jets to operate from the islands...

    The second biggest mistake was to expect the US to honour its promises to central and south american countries that it would defend them from any outside aggression... and therefore be happy with F-5s and A-4s for aircraft.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:37 pm