VMF vs. USN scenarios

why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.

Depending on how you count Gorshkov has either 1/2 or 2* the firepower of an AB  

Currently AB has an anti-ship firepower of 8* Harpoon so 16* Sizzler/Onyx is twice the firepower of an AB
This changes when ABs get Mk41 VLS launched LRASM though.

AB has 96* VLS
Gorshkov has 32* Redut + 16* UKSK = 48* VLS
2*48 = 96 so Gorshkov does actually have 1/2 the firepower in terms of VLS number (not including quad-packs or Palma/RAM).

AlfaT8 wrote:........

I do grasp there duties and i know Russia will not seek naval dominance, yet one must not ignore the other parties capabilities.

Yes, the Gorshvok is an excellent ship and 16 UKSKs is a decent war load, but hear me out, if a frigate is suppose to be a step down from a destroyer, than why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
Dozens??... maybe, like the Buyan and the Steregushi, before they added the UKSK's, i can see that happening.

Gorshkov frigate has more firepower than all Russian destroyer types currently in service. They are also faster, stealthier, need less crew and can engage all types of targets unlike destroyers who are all specialized.

They have less firepower than US destroyers but like I said, they are half the size and were never meant to go up against them, not by themselves that is. And US destroyers are also not as versatile. They are great for land attack but stuff like AA and ASh are bit anemic for vessels of their size. Don't know about anti sub part.

AlfaT8 wrote:
Yes, the Uran is a good system, but right now the Ru.navy is focused on making multirole ships and the UKSK's are very critical to that, i know they will add it later, just as they did with the Buyan and the Steregushi, but i just don't grasp this 2 step approach they're using.

Actually, when i mention Steregushi, i was mostly talking about Gremyashchiy, i will use the latter from now on.

Well if it's easier for them to build Karakurts instead of Buyans, then why not.

Fate of Gremashi is still undecided so it's wait and see on that part. But Drzkii is definitely next corvette.

Uran is OK system for corvettes. It's capable, cheap, standardized and since these ships will not be roaming too far from coast alone it should do fine. If they go further away they will have bigger boys covering them. And remeber that they have Redut and Paket-M systems. So that is quite a punch.

Also, Uran might have ''hidden'' land attack function that we don't know about just like Granit and Bastion turned out to have.

As for Karakurts they are definitely easier to build. And unlike Buyans they use strictly domestic components, namely engines. Final batch of Buyans is late because engines have to be imported. They would have been finished otherwise by now.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Yea, that's another thing, whether the Lider is a Destroyer or not, it's firepower is definitely of destroyer caliber, but it's sheer size (especially that tall tower) tells me that it's more a B-Cruiser, this ship confuses me, and then we have Project 21956, not much info on this one.

Upgraded Nakhimonov battlecruiser will have 80 UKSK launchers. Lider will have 250 missiles, 80 of which will be UKSK type. So Lider, even though it will be smaller, is definitely successor of upgraded Kirov class, that much is certain.

Russian and American ships are hard to compare simply because both navies operate completely different ship classes both in size and purpose. Like comparing different models of minivans and pickups. Both are cars yes, but different categories completely.

hoom wrote:

why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.

Depending on how you count Gorshkov has either 1/2 or 2* the firepower of an AB  

Currently AB has an anti-ship firepower of 8* Harpoon so 16* Sizzler/Onyx is twice the firepower of an AB
This changes when ABs get Mk41 VLS launched LRASM though.

AB has 96* VLS
Gorshkov has 32* Redut + 16* UKSK = 48* VLS
2*48 = 96 so Gorshkov does actually have 1/2 the firepower in terms of VLS number (not including quad-packs or Palma/RAM).

So, you saying that 8 harpoon=8 Onxy , and 1 tomahawk = 1 Onyx?



So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

hoom wrote:

why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.

Depending on how you count Gorshkov has either 1/2 or 2* the firepower of an AB  

Currently AB has an anti-ship firepower of 8* Harpoon so 16* Sizzler/Onyx is twice the firepower of an AB
This changes when ABs get Mk41 VLS launched LRASM though.

AB has 96* VLS
Gorshkov has 32* Redut + 16* UKSK = 48* VLS
2*48 = 96 so Gorshkov does actually have 1/2 the firepower in terms of VLS number (not including quad-packs or Palma/RAM).

Uhm... the thing with the U.S VLS's is that it's unified for cruise, AntSh, Air defense and recently ABM missiles, meaning if the U.S desires it they can arm the ship with 96 AntSh missiles, heck the entire ABM controversy is because of this.

Militarov wrote:And ofc Clark wrote that, they write one like that about every single item in the inventory so they get more funds, they have been doing it for decades.

Do you see Militarov ,if what you think (a very odd idea regularly "recycled" by some western apologetic people any time an official document produced by the same western military insiders highlight the backwardness inferiority of some of theirs products in comparison to competitor's ones ) would be correct then we would observe a presentation vastly bloated of the specifics of competitors systems so to persuade US MoD to fund a new R&D program.

Well in the document i have pointed out ,as well in literally dozen of other ones produced only in the last few years.....up to autumn 2015.... used even to present to US generals the overall situation concerning the capability of theirs systems in comparison to those of likely opponents , you can see the exact opposite behaviour.

You can check by yourself - very clear examples are slide 10 and 11-.


http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/commanding-the-seas-a-plan-to-reinvigorate-u-s-navy-surface-warfare/


I can distinctively remember a document of few years ago - i think of 2012 or 2013 - used to present to US Navy Command a model of the new strategic measures and research and acquisition plans to adopt within 2025 where was explained that US Navy still retained a distinctive advantage in land attack cruise missile engagement range and that main opposing forces ,among which Russia and China armed just with SS-N-27, even if conceding to them some unparalleled features in lethality and versatility of employment, cause a mysterious and not further specified "technical backwardness in cruise missile's engine fuel efficiency", would have been forced in a potential conflict to limit theirs land attacks only to near shore ground installations , 300-350 km from those ships, therefore well within the potential engagement range of air groups of stance in main air bases present those theatre , supposedly safely outside the reach of those enemy land attacks !  


Practically marketing approach of main US military related firms is the exact contrary of what outlined in the apologetic hypothesis ; rather that hypothesis is generated and predate exactly upon the same irrational, and often fanatic wish of superiority deep rooted in US military culture that render so efficient the marketing practice.

Any of those US firms present always theirs in production systems as those assuring "unparalleled superiority", "complete primacy", "total dominance".....and so on with similar US- thinking-friendly slogans....over those now produced anywhere else on the planet and presenting perspective products as those extending that "dominace" over any new system now in development by part of any opponent for the next 15-20-30 years.

Militarov you will easily realize that honestly declaring that practically all missiles in the AShM, antisubarine, ground attack, anti-torpedo, anti-AShM roles available today to US Navy surface ships are horribly outmatched under practically any cardinal parameter by those in service with the "hated opponent" (that in observance to cold war era old PsyOp mandates must be always untruthfully presented as technologically inferior and "catching -up" with US products ) and that the new devolopment plans, using in reality nothing more than old weapons re-engineerized to adapt to new roles ,will still hardly be in the same league with those now in-production enemy systems , when them will have likely already adopted the new generation of those calss of weapons, will hardly gain any support of funding in the US Congress for the companies producing them.        
     

You will very very rarely, if any, find a serious domestic military analyst or insider personel ever boast superiority over foreign firms in the field of data sharing, processing and dissemination systems, cooperative and integrated intelligence and surveillance systems, airborne UAVs, microprocessor production and so on for dozen of other military related fields ,but on the other side you can find countless of western military operatives , at practically any level of responsability, literally living blindly in a phantasy world when the fields of theirs wide technical inferirority are concerned and just on that cultural "deviation" predate the marketing tactics of the giants of US military industry and theirs analysis community.

Singular_Transform wrote:So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:........

I do grasp there duties and i know Russia will not seek naval dominance, yet one must not ignore the other parties capabilities.

Yes, the Gorshvok is an excellent ship and 16 UKSKs is a decent war load, but hear me out, if a frigate is suppose to be a step down from a destroyer, than why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
Dozens??... maybe, like the Buyan and the Steregushi, before they added the UKSK's, i can see that happening.

Gorshkov frigate has more firepower than all Russian destroyer types currently in service. They are also faster, stealthier, need less crew and can engage all types of targets unlike destroyers who are all specialized.

They have less firepower than US destroyers but like I said, they are half the size and were never meant to go up against them, not by themselves that is. And US destroyers are also not as versatile. They are great for land attack but stuff like AA and ASh are bit anemic for vessels of their size. Don't know about anti sub part.

Yea, i always though Russian Destroyers were odd in that prospective, it's like the Soviets were trying to make it an ASW ship with token AntSh capabilities.

I know that, but at the same time i also believe Russia shouldn't ignore the adversaries combat capabilities, from what i can see the R.navy is putting high hopes in there Supersonic and soon Hypersonic missiles, while they're hoping to offset any firepower advantage of the adversary with capable Air defenses, it's a good strategy, but why hold back.

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Yes, the Uran is a good system, but right now the Ru.navy is focused on making multirole ships and the UKSK's are very critical to that, i know they will add it later, just as they did with the Buyan and the Steregushi, but i just don't grasp this 2 step approach they're using.

Actually, when i mention Steregushi, i was mostly talking about Gremyashchiy, i will use the latter from now on.

Well if it's easier for them to build Karakurts instead of Buyans, then why not.

Fate of Gremashi is still undecided so it's wait and see on that part. But Drzkii is definitely next corvette.

Uran is OK system for corvettes. It's capable, cheap, standardized and since these ships will not be roaming too far from coast alone it should do fine. If they go further away they will have bigger boys covering them. And remeber that they have Redut and Paket-M systems. So that is quite a punch.

Also, Uran might have ''hidden'' land attack function that we don't know about just like Granit and Bastion turned out to have.

As for Karakurts they are definitely easier to build. And unlike Buyans they use strictly domestic components, namely engines. Final batch of Buyans is late because engines have to be imported. They would have been finished otherwise by now.

I am not to worried, the Drskii will without a doubt get UKSKs later.

Yes, the Uran is OK, and sure it might have those "hidden" functions, but that ain't the point, the R.navy is hell bent on mutirole vessels and the UKSKs the cornerstone to that strategy.

Wow, so even the Buyan got hit by the engine issue, the hell.

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Yea, that's another thing, whether the Lider is a Destroyer or not, it's firepower is definitely of destroyer caliber, but it's sheer size (especially that tall tower) tells me that it's more a B-Cruiser, this ship confuses me, and then we have Project 21956, not much info on this one.

Upgraded Nakhimonov battlecruiser will have 80 UKSK launchers. Lider will have 250 missiles, 80 of which will be UKSK type. So Lider, even though it will be smaller, is definitely successor of upgraded Kirov class, that much is certain.

Russian and American ships are hard to compare simply because both navies operate completely different ship classes both in size and purpose. Like comparing different models of minivans and pickups. Both are cars yes, but different categories completely.

I see, so your of the same opinion.

With respect to size and weight, they are very difficult to compare, to say nothing of there different doctrines, but we can draw some lines if looking at weapon loads.

Mindstorm wrote:
You will surely forgive me if i fail to remain impressed not merely by today AShM weapon selection available to US Navy at the origin of what is widely seen as the greater shortfall of US Navy anti-surface operations, but also by theirs planned replacement.

But US is doing a good job of targeting enemy radar & coms with the Advanced Radiation Guided Missile(AARGM).

AARGM packaged the new guidance into HARM missile bodies, while AARGM-ER takes the internals into a new missile.AARGM utilized HARM motor, body & warhead and replaced the guidance while ER retains the guidance and replaces body & propulsion.

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

If you talk about China and Russia then not the actual situation is the interesting, but the trajectory where it is going



Between 91-10 there hasn't been any procurement activity, they started it recently.

In the next 10-15 years the Russian (and Chinese) navy will change dramatically.


We see the changes of the US navy, because the naval tomahawk is a future development.


So, say, your ship has 16 onyx, and 64 SAM.

How many tomahawk and SAM needed by the enemy to have the same defence/kill chance like you?



I calculated 64 tomahawk,and 64 sam. : )

AlfaT8 wrote:..........

Yea, i always though Russian Destroyers were odd in that prospective, it's like the Soviets were trying to make it an ASW ship with token AntSh capabilities.

I know that, but at the same time i also believe Russia shouldn't ignore the adversaries combat capabilities, from what i can see the R.navy is putting high hopes in there Supersonic and soon Hypersonic missiles, while they're hoping to offset any firepower advantage of the adversary with capable Air defenses, it's a good strategy, but why hold back.

They are not ignoring adversary's capabilities, they are just dealing with them within their budgetary and doctrinal boundaries.

And they are not really holding back. They have plenty of tools available, it's just that most of those tools are land based.

For nuclear countries above certain size facing each other surface fleets are not there to fight head on, their job is to draw attention to themselves in order to create an opening for nuclear submarines. They don't expect to survive direct confrontation one way or the other despite who wins the naval battle because their (and everyone else's) fate will be decided by other branches of the military. This goes for US surface navy as well regardless of their size.

Surface fleets come into play when confronting non-nuclear medium sized enemies in conventional war. That is where all that weaponry they carry can (and does) decide the outcome.


And you are definitely right about comparing ship classes of RU and US Navies.

KiloGolf wrote:lf"]

Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

Harpoon is short range. The AB never has chance to fire it against any ship with long rate missiles.


There is a deep misunderstanding about the tasks of the US navy.

It needs to protect a worldwide merchant network, that ship oil / materials/parts for the US economy and US navy.



It is not simply a problem of coastal defence, sinking dozen VLCC means serious issue with the oil supply to the US.

Additionally if the US won't become irrelevant then it needs to spend big parts of its navy ( 60-70% ) to the Chinese sea, means that small part of it available only for any other missions.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:lf"]

Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

Harpoon is short range. The AB never has chance to fire it against any ship with long rate missiles.


There is a deep misunderstanding about the tasks of the US navy.

It needs to protect a worldwide merchant network, that ship oil / materials/parts for the US economy and US navy.



It is not simply a problem of coastal defence, sinking dozen VLCC means serious issue with the oil supply to the US.

Additionally if the US won't become irrelevant then it needs to spend big parts of its navy ( 60-70% ) to the Chinese sea, means that small part of it available only for any other missions.

Tomahawk Block IVs can be used aganist surface combatants too however.

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

That not true, I don't know where you people get your data but a single hit from a Harpoon missile is not nearly enough to put a 135m ship made out of a full steel construction out of battle let alone to sink it.

Just to put some perspective it has been calculated bu actual designers an engineers that a 95m frigate (or heavy corvett what ever you like) with a aluminum superstructure needs 3-4 direct hits with an Exocet missile (170kg warhead) in order to sink it. Meaning at least 2 an maybe 3 hits with a Harpoon (225kg warhead). An as you can guess it, this would be about the right description for a 20380 series of corvettes.

On the other hand Admiral Gorskov and Grigorovic ships have a full steel construction and are 125 and 135m long respectively, the idea that a single Harpoon hit would put them out of a fight fast is not real. But there might be something that I am not seeing here so correct me if I am wrong.

Lets not forget that when warships are designed they are designed not to be sunk with one hit of what ever the potential adversary of the same size has to hit them with.

In this regard Russian navy has a clear ASM advantage (at the moment) of being able to fire first, at least 100km before the Burks get in range of the Harpoons, the missiles are 1.5-2.5 times faster (Onix) and have an equals size warhead AND lets not forget that the Adm. Gorskov or similar does not have to turn the whole ship to be able to fire the next salvo of 4 missiles like the Burks have to.

miroslav wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

That not true, I don't know where you people get your data but a single hit from a Harpoon missile is not nearly enough to put a 135m ship made out of a full steel construction out of battle let alone to sink it.

Just to put some perspective it has been calculated bu actual designers an engineers that a 95m frigate (or heavy corvett what ever you like) with a aluminum superstructure needs 3-4 direct hits with an Exocet missile (170kg warhead) in order to sink it. Meaning at least 2 an maybe 3 hits with a Harpoon (225kg warhead). An as you can guess it, this would be about the right description for a 20380 series of corvettes.

On the other hand Admiral Gorskov and Grigorovic ships have a full steel construction and are 125 and 135m long respectively, the idea that a single Harpoon hit would put them out of a fight fast is not real. But there might be something that I am not seeing here so correct me if I am wrong.

Lets not forget that when warships are designed they are designed not to be sunk with one hit of what ever the potential adversary of the same size has to hit them with.

In this regard Russian navy has a clear ASM advantage (at the moment) of being able to fire first, at least 100km before the Burks get in range of the Harpoons, the missiles are 1.5-2.5 times faster (Onix) and have an equals size warhead AND lets not forget that the Adm. Gorskov or similar does not have to turn the whole ship to be able to fire the next salvo of 4 missiles like the Burks have to.

5000t and 125m of HMS Sheffield says hello from the 1900m of depth, together with Exorcet resting in its steel superstructure. And Exorcet has quite alot smaller warhead compared to Harpoon 220kg vs 165kg cca.

Also missiles of such size, if they actually hit the ship, that means major issues, even if it doesnt get sank, lose of propulsion, electricity, ventilation, explosions of magazines, loss of fresh water etc, etc.

As i wrote above once before i belive, Tomahawks also have capability to strike surface combatants at least Block IV does.

I see that there is a big debate here around the idea of what would happen if they tried to recreate the battle of Jutland with super of subsonic cruise AS missiles, or what would happen in a one to one type of fight and I know that it seams that I am leaning to the Russian side with my last comment but,

there is no way that any one at the moment or in the next 20 years will get in the position to challenge the rule of the Burks over the worlds oceans.

So I really do not see the point of any attempt to discus the matter, the Burks, as someone said earlier, rule supreme and that is it. A force of 60, large, well armed, general purpose destroyers, even if their ASM capabilities are not great is just that, 60, large, well armed, general purpose destroyers, end of story.

As far as the one-on-one story goes and the strategic and wider picture of it all, then that's where thing start to be interesting.

Now some random things:

As some one pointed out earlier, during the cold war the main job of the Murican navy and NATO was to keep the see routes safe and open so goods can be transported, the Soviet navy on the other hand had the job of disrupting these routes which is a mush easier task, that is the reason behind the great disproportion in ship numbers.

As to the one-on-one deal, all thing considering I hold the Burk and an Adm. Gorskov equal, one with better (or so they say) air defense one with better AS missiles. To be honest I never bought the idea that it would take 12-14 Onix missiles to overwhelm a Burk and its Aegis system, I mean when was this tested, when was it remotely tested. Correct me if am wrong but as far as I know they use subsonic (maybe 1.2-1.5 mach) drones as targets most of the time and they are never used in large numbers and never at a sea skimming altitude. We all know how misguided it can be to judge the success rate of a system that was never used against challenging targets. The only thing that a Standard system was given a chance to shot down so far are old Libyan an Syrian mig's that do not have a warning system of any kind and that did nothing to prevent a hit from happening and lets not forget a passenger jet, hardly a challenge.

miroslav wrote:I see that there is a big debate here around the idea of what would happen if they tried to recreate the battle of Jutland with super of subsonic cruise AS missiles, or what would happen in a one to one type of fight and I know that it seams that I am leaning to the Russian side with my last comment but,

there is no way that any one at the moment or in the next 20 years will get in the position to challenge the rule of the Burks over the worlds oceans.

So I really do not see the point of any attempt to discus the matter, the Burks, as someone said earlier, rule supreme and that is it. A force of 60, large, well armed, general purpose destroyers, even if their ASM capabilities are not great is just that, 60, large, well armed, general purpose destroyers, end of story.

As far as the one-on-one story goes and the strategic and wider picture of it all, then that's where thing start to be interesting.

Now some random things:

As some one pointed out earlier, during the cold war the main job of the Murican navy and NATO was to keep the see routes safe and open so goods can be transported, the Soviet navy on the other hand had the job of disrupting these routes which is a mush easier task, that is the reason behind the great disproportion in ship numbers.

As to the one-on-one deal, all thing considering I hold the Burk and an Adm. Gorskov equal, one with better (or so they say) air defense one with better AS missiles. To be honest I never bought the idea that it would take 12-14 Onix missiles to overwhelm a Burk and its Aegis system, I mean when was this tested, when was it remotely tested. Correct me if am wrong but as far as I know they use subsonic (maybe 1.2-1.5 mach) drones as targets most of the time and they are never used in large numbers and never at a sea skimming altitude. We all know how misguided it can be to judge the success rate of a system that was never used against challenging targets. The only thing that a Standard system was given a chance to shot down so far are old Libyan an Syrian mig's that do not have a warning system of any kind and that did nothing to prevent a hit from happening and lets not forget a passenger jet, hardly a challenge.

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/missile-defense-systems/supersonic-targets/default.aspx

Militarov wrote:

miroslav wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:So, to make correct calculation, to destroy the same ship how many onyx, tomahawk and harpoon required at 50km and 300 km distance? Just the establish the qualitative ratios as well : )

Probably one good harpoon hit is enough to waste a frigate like the AG (0 of which are operational). When the opposing force operates 22 CGs, 63 DDGs and 51 SSNs, one or two or ten vessels, with whatever silver bullet load-out, are very much toast. The reality is quite harsh here, this isn't a "Navy I would like" discussion. So dismissing such a threat is unwise. The AB reigns supreme at the moment and seemingly for the next couple of decades.

That not true, I don't know where you people get your data but a single hit from a Harpoon missile is not nearly enough to put a 135m ship made out of a full steel construction out of battle let alone to sink it.

Just to put some perspective it has been calculated bu actual designers an engineers that a 95m frigate (or heavy corvett what ever you like) with a aluminum superstructure needs 3-4 direct hits with an Exocet missile (170kg warhead) in order to sink it. Meaning at least 2 an maybe 3 hits with a Harpoon (225kg warhead). An as you can guess it, this would be about the right description for a 20380 series of corvettes.

On the other hand Admiral Gorskov and Grigorovic ships have a full steel construction and are 125 and 135m long respectively, the idea that a single Harpoon hit would put them out of a fight fast is not real. But there might be something that I am not seeing here so correct me if I am wrong.

Lets not forget that when warships are designed they are designed not to be sunk with one hit of what ever the potential adversary of the same size has to hit them with.

In this regard Russian navy has a clear ASM advantage (at the moment) of being able to fire first, at least 100km before the Burks get in range of the Harpoons, the missiles are 1.5-2.5 times faster (Onix) and have an equals size warhead AND lets not forget that the Adm. Gorskov or similar does not have to turn the whole ship to be able to fire the next salvo of 4 missiles like the Burks have to.

5000t and 125m of HMS Sheffield says hello from the 1900m of depth, together with Exorcet resting in its steel superstructure. And Exorcet has quite alot smaller warhead compared to Harpoon 220kg vs 165kg cca.

Also missiles of such size, if they actually hit the ship, that means major issues, even if it doesnt get sank, lose of propulsion, electricity, ventilation, explosions of magazines, loss of fresh water etc, etc.

As i wrote above once before i belive, Tomahawks also have capability to strike surface combatants at least Block IV does.

Sorry, but it took HMS Sheffield abut 6 days to sink. It's still not sure weeder the warhead actually exploded, the fuel from the rocket motor did start a big fire, and the hit itself was a lucky on since it sever the main ventilation a water lines for fire fighting system, but it still took 6 days for it to goo under.

miroslav wrote:

Sorry, but it took HMS Sheffield abut 6 days to sink. It's still not sure weeder the warhead actually exploded, the fuel from the rocket motor did start a big fire, and the hit itself was a lucky on since it sever the main ventilation a water lines for fire fighting system, but it still took 6 days for it to goo under.

It did explode actually, they confirmed it during closing of the case few years back however that aside, ship was crippled, with no electricity, no water and no propulsion. So basically it wasnt a ship anymore, rather a very expencive artificial reef. All that thanks to 165kg warhead which as far as AhMs go is quite small.

Militarov wrote:

miroslav wrote:I see that there is a big debate here around the idea of what would happen if they tried to recreate the battle of Jutland with super of subsonic cruise AS missiles, or what would happen in a one to one type of fight and I know that it seams that I am leaning to the Russian side with my last comment but,

there is no way that any one at the moment or in the next 20 years will get in the position to challenge the rule of the Burks over the worlds oceans.

So I really do not see the point of any attempt to discus the matter, the Burks, as someone said earlier, rule supreme and that is it. A force of 60, large, well armed, general purpose destroyers, even if their ASM capabilities are not great is just that, 60, large, well armed, general purpose destroyers, end of story.

As far as the one-on-one story goes and the strategic and wider picture of it all, then that's where thing start to be interesting.

Now some random things:

As some one pointed out earlier, during the cold war the main job of the Murican navy and NATO was to keep the see routes safe and open so goods can be transported, the Soviet navy on the other hand had the job of disrupting these routes which is a mush easier task, that is the reason behind the great disproportion in ship numbers.

As to the one-on-one deal, all thing considering I hold the Burk and an Adm. Gorskov equal, one with better (or so they say) air defense one with better AS missiles. To be honest I never bought the idea that it would take 12-14 Onix missiles to overwhelm a Burk and its Aegis system, I mean when was this tested, when was it remotely tested. Correct me if am wrong but as far as I know they use subsonic (maybe 1.2-1.5 mach) drones as targets most of the time and they are never used in large numbers and never at a sea skimming altitude. We all know how misguided it can be to judge the success rate of a system that was never used against challenging targets. The only thing that a Standard system was given a chance to shot down so far are old Libyan an Syrian mig's that do not have a warning system of any kind and that did nothing to prevent a hit from happening and lets not forget a passenger jet, hardly a challenge.

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/missile-defense-systems/supersonic-targets/default.aspx

Ok, fair enough, but as far as I can read its still not adopted fully and I did not find any data on it being shot down by a Standard missile and even if a successful test was done how may "targets" did they use.

Just to be clear I am not saying that the Standard sys. in some how bad, not at all, there is a gob reason way its used on every US destroyer, I am just saying that the claim that it would take at least 12-16 Onix missiles for one to get through is just baloney when you take into account the reality of combat and the uncertainty of it all.

miroslav wrote:

Militarov wrote:

miroslav wrote:I see that there is a big debate here around the idea of what would happen if they tried to recreate the battle of Jutland with super of subsonic cruise AS missiles, or what would happen in a one to one type of fight and I know that it seams that I am leaning to the Russian side with my last comment but,

there is no way that any one at the moment or in the next 20 years will get in the position to challenge the rule of the Burks over the worlds oceans.

So I really do not see the point of any attempt to discus the matter, the Burks, as someone said earlier, rule supreme and that is it. A force of 60, large, well armed, general purpose destroyers, even if their ASM capabilities are not great is just that, 60, large, well armed, general purpose destroyers, end of story.

As far as the one-on-one story goes and the strategic and wider picture of it all, then that's where thing start to be interesting.

Now some random things:

As some one pointed out earlier, during the cold war the main job of the Murican navy and NATO was to keep the see routes safe and open so goods can be transported, the Soviet navy on the other hand had the job of disrupting these routes which is a mush easier task, that is the reason behind the great disproportion in ship numbers.

As to the one-on-one deal, all thing considering I hold the Burk and an Adm. Gorskov equal, one with better (or so they say) air defense one with better AS missiles. To be honest I never bought the idea that it would take 12-14 Onix missiles to overwhelm a Burk and its Aegis system, I mean when was this tested, when was it remotely tested. Correct me if am wrong but as far as I know they use subsonic (maybe 1.2-1.5 mach) drones as targets most of the time and they are never used in large numbers and never at a sea skimming altitude. We all know how misguided it can be to judge the success rate of a system that was never used against challenging targets. The only thing that a Standard system was given a chance to shot down so far are old Libyan an Syrian mig's that do not have a warning system of any kind and that did nothing to prevent a hit from happening and lets not forget a passenger jet, hardly a challenge.

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/missile-defense-systems/supersonic-targets/default.aspx

Ok, fair enough, but as far as I can read its still not adopted fully and I did not find any data on it being shot down by a Standard missile and even if a successful test was done how may "targets" did they use.

Just to be clear I am not saying that the Standard sys. in some how bad, not at all, there is a gob reason way its used on every US destroyer, I am just saying that the claim that it would take at least 12-16 Onix missiles for one to get through is just baloney when you take into account the reality of combat and the uncertainty of it all.

We mentioned HMS Sheffield that got hit by an Exocet missile, the ship had air defense missiles but no point defense (big mistake) and low electronic jamming capabilities and similar equipment. But it was still believed, at the time, that a pair of planes a singe missile would not be able to harm it. Not including the tactical errors that where made. HMS Coventry was sank with a common bomb and it also had a, at the time, god air defense, but again no point defense and bad tactics.

Militarov wrote:

miroslav wrote:

Sorry, but it took HMS Sheffield abut 6 days to sink. It's still not sure weeder the warhead actually exploded, the fuel from the rocket motor did start a big fire, and the hit itself was a lucky on since it sever the main ventilation a water lines for fire fighting system, but it still took 6 days for it to goo under.

It did explode actually, they confirmed it during closing of the case few years back however that aside, ship was crippled, with no electricity, no water and no propulsion. So basically it wasnt a ship anymore, rather a very expencive artificial reef. All that thanks to 165kg warhead which as far as AhMs go is quite small.

I did some more reading on the subject and the sinking of HMS Sheffield is not an example that can be used as "valid" argument that a frigate size ship can be put out of a fight with a single hit of subsonic missile its more of a reminder that bad thing happen people do not do their job.
Event when the warning was given and missiles confirmed the captain was informed only a few seconds before impact meaning the ship as a unit was not at all in a state of readies, hell event the doors where not locked (reasonable asumption) let alone people being at their stations (fact) in such a state its no wonder that a single hit caused so much damage even a really lucky one.

So, you saying that 8 harpoon=8 Onxy , and 1 tomahawk = 1 Onyx?

I meant it purely quantitatively.
Qualitatively Onyx & Sizzler would obviously be rated higher than Harpoon.

But if you're only sending 8 vs a Burke it probably wouldn't make a difference which type you send.
16* Onyx/Sizzler maybe.

As pointed out above US does have Mach 2.5 sea-skimming drones & shoots them down successfully with ABs.
Russian AA missiles mostly have quoted max target speeds well over Mach 2.5 also.

Uhm... the thing with the U.S VLS's is that it's unified for cruise, AntSh, Air defense and recently ABM missiles, meaning if the U.S desires it they can arm the ship with 96 AntSh missiles, heck the entire ABM controversy is because of this.

Nope. They currently have no VLS anti-ship missiles in service -> as I said Burkes currently only have 8* Harpoon.

Tomahawk Block IVs can be used aganist surface combatants too however.

Sort of in a way requiring heavy human involvement so no saturation attacks.
The one with proper anti-ship seeker is not in service 'til like 2021 -> currently only 8* Harpoon.

When LRASM hits service then yes a single Burke will have stupendous anti-ship firepower, just not right now & not during their whole previous service life.

Is there a Russian counterpart of the LRASM that is in the works?

Not an explicitly stealthy long range type as far as I know.

Onyx & Sizzler supersonic are in-service.
I think there is a long range subsonic anti-ship Calibr version? But not stealthy.
Zircon hypersonic in development.

As pointed out above US does have Mach 2.5 sea-skimming drones & shoots them down successfully with ABs.
Russian AA missiles mostly have quoted max target speeds well over Mach 2.5 also.

Umm, if we are talking real world can we mention the engagement of an Iranian airbus in the 1980s where that super ship believed it was under attack from a descending F-14 yet review of the tapes showed an ascending airbus... it took 90 seconds before the missile was actually fired because of a fault... how much distance can a supersonic sea skimming missile cover in a minute and a half?

BTW this new American missile is just a Kh-31 reverse engineered... poorly with a Standard SAM missiles solid rocket booster stuck on its end... yay America...

The Sheffield was sunk because it could not operate its Sea Wolf SAM while communicating via Satellite link to London... the British Navy had Exocet in service and knew the missile inside and out... it didn't help.

The thing with sea skimming missiles is that to detect them you need your radar on... which gives away your position... if you operate with your radar off then you are much more vulnerable...

When LRASM hits service then yes a single Burke will have stupendous anti-ship firepower, just not right now & not during their whole previous service life.

Could say the same about Russian vessels when Hypersonic Zircon enters service...

Is there a Russian counterpart of the LRASM that is in the works?

All their long range cruise missiles have a stealth element, but would be rather redundant... even a missile with the RCS of a marble is of no use as no marbles fly at 800km/h just above the sea surface...