Russian Navy vs Japanese Navy

Em...guys?! A small corvette can't acquire the data to hit a target far away. Remember Yankees are a bit crazy and sometimes weird, but not complete amateurs and losers! Expect heavy electronic warfare and maybe no possibilty to send target data to corvettes. And additional...smaller ships lacks in nearly everything...radar, endurance, defense, multirole etc.

You can't replace a Kirov cruiser with 4 corvettes or something like that! It's impossible. And Tsirkon only matters for first strike, but not in a longer conflict...subs can take out corvette after corvette, a complete battlegroup can launch saturation attacks easy overwhelming the defense of smaller ships.

I understand the quitting of Lider-class...but why Super-Gorshkov???

And please don't think a conventional war between Russia and other countries can't happen! What will happen if Japan tries to take Kurile Islands back? Nuke the whole country and killing 120 million people for rocks, a few trees and dirt? Russia would be Pariah for next 1000 years. A conventional war will be conventional for sure, only if the country's survival is at risk nuclear weapons will be used! And Russia should be prepared in naval warfare too!

Azi wrote:Em...guys?! A small corvette can't acquire the data to hit a target far away. Remember Yankees are a bit crazy and sometimes weird, but not complete amateurs and losers! Expect heavy electronic warfare and maybe no possibilty to send target data to corvettes. And additional...smaller ships lacks in nearly everything...radar, endurance, defense, multirole etc.

You can't replace a Kirov cruiser with 4 corvettes or something like that! It's impossible. And Tsirkon only matters for first strike, but not in a longer conflict...subs can take out corvette after corvette, a complete battlegroup can launch saturation attacks easy overwhelming the defense of smaller ships.

I understand the quitting of Lider-class...but why Super-Gorshkov???

And please don't think a conventional war between Russia and other countries can't happen! What will happen if Japan tries to take Kurile Islands back? Nuke the whole country and killing 120 million people for rocks, a few trees and dirt? Russia would be Pariah for next 1000 years. A conventional war will be conventional for sure, only if the country's survival is at risk nuclear weapons will be used! And Russia should be prepared in naval warfare too!

No ship that lauches from over 100 miles away will be relying on its own sensors. Sattelite and recon drones will provide the approx target area. Tsirkon will have its own sensors when descending from high altitude. Targeting will be key, thermal and electro optical will be harder to jam but can be spoofed or blinded. EW and countermeasures are a problem for any weapon or platform. I suspect even WWII era battleship guns can be shot down by todays systems.

How many corvettes = a Kirov in fire power? It depends on weapons. I think we agree that a Caliber equipped Buyan class corvette would sink Bismark or even the Iowa class even in their final iteration.

It would probably need torpedos to finish the job. But the missiles would cripple the ship. No doubt at all.

Then when you get into supersonic missiles the warhead fusing becomes very complicated, this is compunded by hypersonics. I saw a vid of a Russian supersonic missile hitting a test target from the bow. I was kinda surprised at this but it makes sense. Many ships have only the main gun in the front. But its also makes fusing more forgiving as the missile will not go right through before exploding. Plunging attack also accomplishes this, if the missle goes right through you will have an explosion under the ship, which is pretty much game over as well.

Azi wrote:A small corvette can't acquire the data to hit a target far away.

Are you serious?

You're typing on a computer (or phone) connected to global redundant network and you think that one node can't receive data from another?

1st world militaries (including Russia) are openly moving towards integrated & data-centric battle management systems across multiple platforms where one weapon carrier can launch on a remote command and targetting info.  The entire concept of distributed lethality revolves around such capabilities.  

You think the little Buyan-Ms used their own sensors to detect IS targets in the Syrian desert?

Regarding lasers, they are not a serious option against hypersonics. Such missiles are inherently designed to handle very high temperature of thousands of degrees (sufficient to generate a plasma envelope) so will be resistant to a laser attack (which kills its target by heating). They travel so fast that the defending system has very little time to engage the missile within its effective range (laser beam dispersion is a serious issue and renders lasers a short range weapon at best).

Laser are OK at killing slow fragile drones, but heat-resistant hypersonics that are travelling faster than a bullet (average is M2.2) and which are actively maneuvering to complicate the task of tracking and extrapolating their trajectory? No, just not gonna happen. This is reality, not Hollywood or a SpaceX promo for "Starship".

Azi wrote:I understand the quitting of Lider-class...but why Super-Gorshkov???

Because they know that when dealing with numerically superior opponent you can't rely on tiny number of large ships, you need large number of small ships for distributed lethality and flexibility

Azi wrote:And please don't think a conventional war between Russia and other countries can't happen! What will happen if Japan tries to take Kurile Islands back? Nuke the whole country and killing 120 million people for rocks, a few trees and dirt? Russia would be Pariah for next 1000 years.

And this is one of things everyone keeps overlooking: Kurils alongside all other potential hotspots for Russian Navy are all within range of Russian coastal assets like missiles and aviation alongside all their small vessels

Japanese can't attack Kurils without getting obliterated by Russian Air Force, coastal missiles, ballistic missiles, ships and submarines because they are ALL in close proximity

Same goes for any other location where something might happen, they are all close by


And if it does come to nukes (hypothetically) they won't need to nuke 120 million Japanese: first they nuke Japanese fleet near Kurils, then if needed they nuke Japanese fleet near Japan, then if needed they Nuke Japanese fleet in ports, then if needed they nuke Japanese army in their forward positions, then if needed they nuke Japanese army in their bases, etc...

Whole thing would be over long before even Japanese towns come on the roster let alone cities

And no, Russia would not be pariah for 1000 years for defending it's territory but Japan could definitely take up to 1000 years to recover depending on when they give up

1st world militaries (including Russia) are openly moving towards integrated & data-centric battle management systems across multiple platforms where one weapon carrier can launch on a remote command and targetting info. The entire concept of distributed lethality revolves around such capabilities.

Russia has almost no "nodes" in south america for exemple. What you say is true when the enemy is inside your "net" but if it is not, things get complicated. The discussion is about destroyer/cruisers for long range operations. So most of the time they will be alone or with 1 or 2 other ship and will have to rely on their own sensors. A Gorshkov will make a bubble of 200km while a Gorshkov M with L band radar would make a bubble of 600km and have more weapons.

1st world militaries have some tools to destroy those nodes also. Then they will rely even more on their own ship's capacities.

And this is one of things everyone keeps overlooking: Kurils alongside all other potential hotspots for Russian Navy are all within range of Russian coastal assets like missiles and aviation alongside all their small vessels

Russian far east underarmed. Japanese navy is not weak. Russian advantage are the long range aviation and missiles. Japan has a better navy and air force/ air cover there.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Azi wrote:A small corvette can't acquire the data to hit a target far away.

Are you serious?

You're typing on a computer (or phone) connected to global redundant network and you think that one node can't receive data from another?

1st world militaries (including Russia) are openly moving towards integrated & data-centric battle management systems across multiple platforms where one weapon carrier can launch on a remote command and targetting info.  The entire concept of distributed lethality revolves around such capabilities.  

You think the little Buyan-Ms used their own sensors to detect IS targets in the Syrian desert?

And you think that USA has no ASAT capabilities? Four countries in the world have the capabilities to destroy satellites in the orbit...USA, Russia, China and India. And a few more countries are able to jam satellite communication or to blind temporary satellites. After that you MUST rely on recon aircraft, but for this you need some kind of airfield not soooo far away. And recon aircrafts can be easy targets for a carrier battle group.

Bigger ship means more possibilities and greater detection range. For example... Arleigh Burke-destroyer (really fugly ship, but with good electronic systems) have a passive OTH radar with the possibilitie to detect enemy ships at a range of 950 km (if the enemy communicates). They can observe the airspace with a arange of 580 km. Active radar detection of enemy ships is 105 km. The SLQ-32 is a EW suite able to counter attacks with radar guided missiles. And please compare this to a modern russian corvette. Only modern russian ship to comapre is Gorshkov-frigate, but with limitations too. To negate the limitations the Super Gorshkov-class was planned and now cancelled. And at least to say that nearly no russian corvette ist tasked against subs, Karakurt-class has simply no sonar.
If you compare a Goshkov-class with a russian corvette...Nearly all system are more powerful and thus better resistant against EW and with better detection.

Conclusion...
With smaller ships Russia is bound to it's own borders, in a pure defensive role (green water navy). For the defensive role the composition of russian navy is perfect....nothing can threat the russian coastline, with all the recon and electronic capabilities the mainland can provide. And with Tsirkon even a single corvette is deadly to a carrier. But NO operation far outside of Russia is possible, no power projection, no guarding of trade routes and only restricted support for allies. This is not malice, but the reality!

PapaDragon wrote:

Azi wrote:I understand the quitting of Lider-class...but why Super-Gorshkov???

Because they know that when dealing with numerically superior opponent you can't rely on tiny number of large ships, you need large number of small ships for distributed lethality and flexibility

Yes! That is true. But bigger ships provide the umbrella for smaller ships! In a group with bigger ships smaller ships become really deadly by a huge factor.

Isos wrote:

1st world militaries (including Russia) are openly moving towards integrated & data-centric battle management systems across multiple platforms where one weapon carrier can launch on a remote command and targetting info. The entire concept of distributed lethality revolves around such capabilities.

Russia has almost no "nodes" in south america for exemple. What you say is true when the enemy is inside your "net" but if it is not, things get complicated. The discussion is about destroyer/cruisers for long range operations. So most of the time they will be alone or with 1 or 2 other ship and will have to rely on their own sensors. A Gorshkov will make a bubble of 200km while a Gorshkov M with L band radar would make a bubble of 600km and have more weapons.

1st world militaries have some tools to destroy those nodes also. Then they will rely even more on their own ship's capacities.

And this is one of things everyone keeps overlooking: Kurils alongside all other potential hotspots for Russian Navy are all within range of Russian coastal assets like missiles and aviation alongside all their small vessels

Russian far east underarmed. Japanese navy is not weak. Russian advantage are the long range aviation and missiles. Japan has a better navy and air force/ air cover there.

Word up! Nothing to add.

Big_Gazza wrote:Regarding lasers, they are not a serious option against hypersonics.  Such missiles are inherently designed to handle very high temperature of thousands of degrees (sufficient to generate a plasma envelope) so will be resistant to a laser attack (which kills its target by heating).  They travel so fast that the defending system has very little time to engage the missile within its effective range (laser beam dispersion is a serious issue and renders lasers a short range weapon at best).  

Yes! That's true...the missile can withstand a few thousands degrees Celsius, so a Laser won't harm them. But don't forget...I think that hypersonic missile will have a low accuracy hitting the target, because the plasma is the biggest problem for sensors. That means that a single Tsirkon means not a 100 % mission kill. Maybe you will need 2 or 3 Tsirkon launched. Same will apply to chinese or american hypersonic weapons, the rules of physics don't change for a nation.

Isos wrote:...Russian far east underarmed. Japanese navy is not weak. Russian advantage are the long range aviation and missiles. Japan has a better navy and air force/ air cover there.

Russian Far East is definitely not undearmeed, you need to check they numbers again

And while Japan does have better Navy it still wouldn't survive attacking Russia

So we went from the size of the ship being a show-stopper for remote detection to continental scale nodes.  WTF?
Keep focus on the subject instead of spewing drivel.    The only advantage of a large ship is higher antenna masts.
But this is utterly irrelevant for modern ship warfare.   No ship mast will solve the horizon problem, if you aim the radar
at the horizon you get the EM waves bouncing off the water surface and reflecting into the upper atmosphere.  Since
no such radar is an over-the-horizon design which uses ionoshpheric reflection, it is totally unable to detect anything
beyond this range.   And modern missile era ships engage each other hundreds of kilometers away.   So it is
a rubbish claim that the size of a ship matters.   Unless you are going to invoke a comparison between a rowboat
and a destroyer.

kvs wrote:So we went from the size of the ship being a show-stopper for remote detection to continental scale nodes.  WTF?
Keep focus on the subject instead of spewing drivel.    The only advantage of a large ship is higher antenna masts.
But this is utterly irrelevant for modern ship warfare.   No ship mast will solve the horizon problem, if you aim the radar
at the horizon you get the EM waves bouncing off the water surface and reflecting into the upper atmosphere.  Since
no such radar is an over-the-horizon design which uses ionoshpheric reflection, it is totally unable to detect anything
beyond this range.   And modern missile era ships engage each other hundreds of kilometers away.   So it is
a rubbish claim that the size of a ship matters.   Unless you are going to invoke a comparison between a rowboat
and a destroyer.

It is the topic. Building big destroyer/cruiser means you want to patrol far away where you have little to no help.

A radar on a cruiser is way more powerfull and better than on a frigate. It can even work as early warning against IRBM because they can have ranges up to 3000km. Gorshkov is limited to 200-300km and 30km in altitude.

Isos wrote:...Building big destroyer/cruiser means you want to patrol far away where you have little to no help.

They DON'T want to patrol far away

The radars onboard the Gorshkov are far better then the ones mounted on Peter the Great.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:...Building big destroyer/cruiser means you want to patrol far away where you have little to no help.

They DON'T want to patrol far away

Then don't build them. I was talking about destroyer/cruiser 's missions not about their strategy.

The radars onboard the Gorshkov are far better then the ones mounted on Peter the Great.

30 years of difference... Upgraded kirov will see better. Upgraded Slava already has a new radar that has a range of 500km.

Then there is the question of stealth. Gorshkov has a S band radar and is more affected by stealth than a new L band radar.

Isos wrote:

1st world militaries (including Russia) are openly moving towards integrated & data-centric battle management systems across multiple platforms where one weapon carrier can launch on a remote command and targetting info. The entire concept of distributed lethality revolves around such capabilities.

Russia has almost no "nodes" in south america for exemple. What you say is true when the enemy is inside your "net" but if it is not, things get complicated. The discussion is about destroyer/cruisers for long range operations. So most of the time they will be alone or with 1 or 2 other ship and will have to rely on their own sensors. A Gorshkov will make a bubble of 200km while a Gorshkov M with L band radar would make a bubble of 600km and have more weapons.

1st world militaries have some tools to destroy those nodes also. Then they will rely even more on their own ship's capacities.

And this is one of things everyone keeps overlooking: Kurils alongside all other potential hotspots for Russian Navy are all within range of Russian coastal assets like missiles and aviation alongside all their small vessels

Russian far east underarmed. Japanese navy is not weak. Russian advantage are the long range aviation and missiles. Japan has a better navy and air force/ air cover there.

South American nodes - Venezuela anybody? Then there is Cuba just off the coast of FL.


Japan would have to stage an amphibious landing, even back in 1940 Hitler felt this is impossible without Air Superiority. Even WITH Air superiority Russia has some extremely capable submarines. The chances of Japan gaining air surperiority over Russia alone are not good at all, then they would face all the onshore missile batteries. Even if they have local air superiority the Mig-31 and TU-22 fleet can send a wave of 80 Kinzhal missiles that will ruin the day for the Japanese navy. Follow up with a wave of Submarine launch Calibers and coastal batteries and its just not feasible. That is without a single nuke being used. Japan really has no claim to the Kurils. Russia has a much longer history of ownership and Japan was utterly crushed twice by the Soviets. They need to just throw in the towel on that. If Germany has renounced all claim to Kalingrad its time for Japan to throw in the towel on the Kurils.

Isos wrote:
30 years of difference... Upgraded kirov will see better. Upgraded Slava already has a new radar that has a range of 500km.

Then there is the question of stealth. Gorshkov has a S band radar and is more affected by stealth than a new L band radar.

It may be able to detect air targets at 500 KM but NO WAY surface targets. For that it will rely on intel from shore long range radar search and satellite data. Also martime patrol planes and drones will be able to provide much longer range search.

Another good option is having subs relay target info and have the missiles come in from the corvette so the sub can remain undetected. Gonna be even more deadly when subs start launching and retreiving drones if they are not already doing so.

Russia has nothing in Venezuela or Cuba. No radar, no jets, no permanently deployed ships ... Venezuelan s-300 could be integrated maybe but nothing else. Their ships would be alone.

Venezuelan and Cuban capacities are limited to their borders/coasts and wouldn't help that much.


Have you seen the japanese air force ? 250 f15 and 100 f-16 equiped with a ARH missile carrying an aesa radar. They are buying 100 f-35.

They have tens of modern destroyers and tens of last generation submarines.

They are bar far better equipped than russians in the far east.

It may be able to detect air targets at 500 KM but NO WAY surface targets. For that it will rely on intel from shore long range radar search and satellite data. Also martime patrol planes and drones will be able to provide much longer range search.

Another good option is having subs relay target info and have the missiles come in from the corvette so the sub can remain undetected. Gonna be even more deadly when subs start launching and retreiving drones if they are not already doing so.

There is space for 3 ka27 that have a radar with 200km range against sea targets. Gorshkov has only 1 ka27.

Isos wrote:Russia has nothing in Venezuela or Cuba. No radar, no jets, no permanently deployed ships ... Venezuelan s-300 could be integrated maybe but nothing else. Their ships would be alone.

Venezuelan and Cuban capacities are limited to their borders/coasts and wouldn't help that much.


Have you seen the japanese air force ? 250 f15 and 100 f-16 equiped with a ARH missile carrying an aesa radar. They are buying 100 f-35.

They have tens of modern destroyers and tens of last generation submarines.

They are bar far better equipped than russians in the far east.

It does not matter, the range will difficult and they have the MUCH harder task, which is to defend airspace at long range, cross a large distance on water, land and supply an army to conquer and hold the island. Russia has a 7KM crossing. Russia could allow them to take it and then pummel any attempt at resupply. Not feasible. Then there is the fact that Russia has a massive nuclear arsneal.

I don't think we know what Russia has in Venezuela or Cuba

Isos wrote:

It may be able to detect air targets at 500 KM but NO WAY surface targets. For that it will rely on intel from shore long range radar search and satellite data. Also martime patrol planes and drones will be able to provide much longer range search.

Another good option is having subs relay target info and have the missiles come in from the corvette so the sub can remain undetected. Gonna be even more deadly when subs start launching and retreiving drones if they are not already doing so.

There is space for 3 ka27 that have a radar with 200km range against sea targets. Gorshkov has only 1 ka27.

Drones will soon match that and Buyan will be able to launch and retrieve these.

It does not matter, the range will difficult and they have the MUCH harder task, which is to defend airspace at long range, cross a large distance on water, land and supply an army to conquer and hold the island. Russia has a 7KM crossing. Russia could allow them to take it and then pummel any attempt at resupply. Not feasible. Then there is the fact that Russia has a massive nuclear arsneal.

I don't think we know what Russia has in Venezuela or Cuba

If japan anhilate russian pacific fleet it will be easy. And Japanese mainland is as close to the islands as russian.

They have nothing in Venezuela and Cuba.

Drones will soon match that and Buyan will be able to launch and retrieve these.

Buyan will use small drones with no radar that are easy targets like orlan 10.

A kirov can carry the ka27 and ten times more drone drones than any corvette/missile boat. It still has the advantage. Actually Idk why I reply to this bullshit claim.

mnztr wrote:It does not matter, the range will difficult and they have the MUCH harder task, which is to defend airspace at long range, cross a large distance on water, land and supply an army to conquer and hold the island. Russia has a 7KM crossing. Russia could allow them to take it and then pummel any attempt at resupply. Not feasible. Then there is the fact that Russia has a massive nuclear arsneal.

What most people don't understand...a conflict in South China Sea, around Cuba or the Kurile Islands won't go nuclear. If you start using them it's the prelude to the big nuclear clash and you can't stop it. Why do you think USA used no small tactical nukes against Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan? You can't calculate the response!

A conflict for the Kurile Island would be conventional! No reason for Russia to risk the lives of 145 million people (own popluation...int. much more). And this is only an example...Japan is peaceful, they won't a war for the Kurile Islands.

The point is that Russia has interest in overseas.

Isos wrote:A radar on a cruiser is way more powerfull and better than on a frigate. It can even work as early warning against IRBM because they can have ranges up to 3000km. Gorshkov is limited to 200-300km and 30km in altitude.

That's the point! And even EW countermeasures are more powerful and more effective.

Isos wrote:Russia has nothing in Venezuela or Cuba. No radar, no jets, no permanently deployed ships ... Venezuelan s-300 could be integrated maybe but nothing else. Their ships would be alone.

Venezuelan and Cuban capacities are limited to their borders/coasts and wouldn't help that much.


Have you seen the japanese air force ? 250 f15 and 100 f-16 equiped with a ARH missile carrying an aesa radar. They are buying 100 f-35.

They have tens of modern destroyers and tens of last generation submarines.

They are bar far better equipped than russians in the far east.

Venezuela has SU-30s and Cuba Mig 29s, you don't think Russia cannot send them drones? Both Venezuela and Cuba have navies that can relay info to Russia.

Networkcentric warfare can relay any intelligence not just sensors as long as it is timely and accurate.