Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
In the "Russo-Japanese War" Russia was far superior to Japan, but it lost because of failed tactics.
The imperial Russian forces were not superior at all.
The real discussion is not the Kurile Islands!!! Real discussion is about saving russian interest in overseas. And you can't save your interests only with corvettes, for that Gorshkov class is needed. And additional Super Gorshkov is a must have! Lider class is not that important now. It should be no problem to build Super Gorshkov, if there are able to build Gorshkov-class.
Gorshkov class are still only Frigates that would lack the endurance to operate far from Russia for very long.
The thing is that a Frigate is just a bigger better armed longer endurance Corvette with bigger and better sensors and more weapons and the capacity to have everything... ie good sonar, good air defence, good attack missile capacity. A corvette on the other hand might not be able to carry a decent sonar and everything else and its smaller size means fewer weapons and shorter time on station.
A Destroyer is not just a scaled up Frigate... a Destroyer is something that has bigger sensors and more weapons but also has endurance and a helicopter and drones and rather better capacity all round than any frigate or corvette... it is not just a case of scaling up a frigate... it needs to be designed for the job.
In many ways a Cruiser is a scaled up Destroyer... more air defence capacity and both destroyers but more so Cruisers have the ability to defend the ships operating around them in addition to defending themselves... a bit like a Corvette is a Verba team... or Pine or even Kornet-EM unit with HE missiles and an anti drone role while a Frigate is a Panstir or TOR or OSA battery, while a Destroyer is S-350 and S-400 so it can start protecting other things as well as itself... yet when operating with a few TOR systems the improvement in defence is mutual, and the Cruiser is S-350, S-400, and S-500.
A good Navy has all those classes... the cold war Russian navy didn't have that many Frigates and had mostly corvettes and destroyers, but the new Frigates are like short range destroyers that are much more powerful than the old Krivaks.
Destroying airfields applies to both sides in a conflict. Wink An attacker would try to destroy russian airfields, using saturation attacks with CM and tactical missiles. So all problems for the opponent are your own problems. The real situation would be far more complex.
And yes, the F-35 is shit and lacks a few abilities! ;D
But the ability of Russia to hit Japanese or HATO airfields is enhanced by their pathetic lack of IADS, while the ability of Japan or HATO to hit Russian airfields or vehicle based anti ship missile batteries dotted around the coasts will be hampered by that rather capable IADS network they are operating under... enhanced by the air force aircraft also supporting and defending the Russian forces on Russian territory.
Azi wrote:Only 2 cruisers for 3 fleets?Tsavo Lion wrote:The 4 Kirovs r already built & only 2 will be modernized & kept, as it'll cost more $ & time to build their replacements &/ smaller ships.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russian-navy-dismantling-two-massive-nuclear-battlecruisers-heres-why-53827
Those 2 will be enough for another 20+ years, no need for Leaders.
The thing is that those cruisers will be the centres of surface action groups... they would normally include air craft carriers, but that is confused by the fact that US carrier groups are carrier groups.... groups of ships there to support and protect the aircraft carriers... the aircraft carriers carry out the attacks and defend from enemy forces with air power. For the Russians the aircraft carrier is to protect the ships using their air power, so while a surface action group might be sent to a particular area it does not need to include an aircraft carrier though it should have a cruiser.
The Russians may upgrade two of their Kirov class cruisers, but they also have 3 or 4 Slava class cruisers they can upgrade too if they wish to have more cruisers. There is no rule on how many cruisers you can take if you need them...
Imagine a situation where a critical Russian agent... Putins best man is in trouble... black helos all around and men with three letters on their back all around his house in body armour holding sub machine guns... sending two Kirovs and two Slavas as well as the Kuznetsov and 3-4 Sovremmenies and 4-5 Udaloys would be the least they would do to rescue me.... ummm.. the agent...
What are you smocking ? They were far worse than Nazi back in the time. And today Abe is following the same path as the ones in charge in 1940. He is pushing towards a powerfull Japan and is changing the strategy from defence to attack.
He is more militaristic, but the Japanese really are not interested in a new war any time soon... they are like the Russians... their experience of war tells them it is not a great way to sort things out... brutal and destructive and not always conclusive.
Kurils are very important for the japanese. That's a huge ressource of food and they hve a self pride that will always push them to try to get the islands back.
The people in the north would certainly like to return to those fishing grounds I expect, but none of them will want to step in to the cage with the bear to get it back.
The 1990s would have been the best time... either by paying for it or taking by force... they did neither.
I wouldn't be surprise if they still think the lands of the former empire are still theirs.
Their textbooks still tell the children of Japan that they were the victims of WWII...
The article is not very good! They are writting about small ships able to strike targets with Tsirkon as far as 1000 km. That's true for sure. But the enemy will maybe have the option to strike at longer range. How? For example the combat radius of an F-35B or C onboard a carrier, part of a carrier battle group, is fully equipped with missiles and bombs less than 1000 km. But with refueling the range increase significant. So it's able to start F-35 from a carrier, refuel them in the air (via drones) and to launch an attack without being in the AD zone of a corvette. Only from a frigate on you can threaten the attacker to become the target himself. This what I mean with an umbrrella bigger ships span for smaller ships. So you can't compare navalized S-500 with Pantsir.
Tsirkon is a great weapon with nearly no defense against it...but you have to come within combat range. So it is the ultimate weapon for subs and can convert any destroyer or cruiser in a ultimate killer, able to destroy a whole carrier group. But a small ship with such a powerful weapon must have luck.
To defend Russian waters and to patrol Russian waters corvette with Zircon is ideal in terms of performance and cost and effectiveness.
They don't need a lot of power projection right now, but for the moment they have 4-5 cruisers and also other cold war types that can fill the role while they perfect Corvettes and Frigates and then start on Destroyers and Cruisers.
I'm not a fan of the Slavas! Back in time they were nice and they try to refurbish them now, but I doubt they would be so good in future. But yes, you are right...I forgot them. They are officially cruisers.
With angled launchers for UKSK launcher bins they should be reasonably useful...
Bombing with dumb bombs makes you go over air defence and an airspace full of enemy fighters. Cruise missiles suck at destroying a runway because they make a single hole. Only french have a dedicated cruise missile to destroy runways and it comes with submunitions. Iskander could come with submunition but doesn't have the range to do so.
Most Russian cruise missiles have cluster bomb options and cratering munitions are standard...
Kh-22 and 32 would be ideal as its warhead is 1,000kg.
I think the Kh-32s warhead is about 750 kg or 800 kg, but diving down at mach 5+ would make a hell of a mark on the ground either way...
Essentially it all boils down to...
IF Japan decided to take the Kurile islands by force they would need to mount a fairly large operation to take them.
This would involve lots of planning and preparation and of course require a significant number of soldiers and ships... so to hide this activity they would have to stage an exercise... and to be an effective disguise it would have to be an exercise landing.
The only place they could convincingly hold such an exercise might be along a beach on the northern island of Japan near Nemuro which is about 15 nautical miles from all the Kurill islands... but such an exercise will be monitored closely by the Russians including by military forces on the islands... and don't you think the military forces on those islands are armed and prepared to repel a landing force... wouldn't that just be an obvious equipment selection decision?
The defence force on the islands are not there to stop the invasion.... they are the trip flare that releases the hounds and when the radar is taken out and the radios stop working they will know it is an attack and they will be fully aware of the exercise force nearby and put two and two together... they don't need to invade Japan, what they need to do is fight off the invasion... sinking two or three ships should do the trick... fighter jets from the mainland would be overhead in 10-20 minutes and naval spetsnaz would probably be landed first from An-2s or Il-76s... or by sub... how much blood is Japan prepared to lose for these four rocks?
Just looking at the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia I don't think Tokyo would be attacked, but Japanese ships in port and aircraft on airfields would be fair game...
.