Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+48
thegopnik
11E
LMFS
owais.usmani
Firebird
Hole
Tsavo Lion
Rodion_Romanovic
Admin
Gazputin
VladimirSahin
eehnie
franco
Ned86
x_54_u43
miketheterrible
jhelb
Big_Gazza
Project Canada
miroslav
Tolstoy
RTN
PapaDragon
Isos
hoom
JohninMK
kvs
OminousSpudd
SeigSoloyvov
KiloGolf
Singular_Transform
runaway
AlfaT8
GJ Flanker
George1
etaepsilonk
Vann7
Department Of Defense
sepheronx
TR1
Viktor
collegeboy16
flamming_python
Mindstorm
As Sa'iqa
GarryB
Austin
ahmedfire
52 posters

    Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:44 am

    GarryB wrote:The Black Sea is too small and too easy to close off so your only carrier is stuck right next to your country providing air support for ships that can already be supported by land based aircraft... how stupid is that?
    If Turkey is stupid enough, Russia will forcibly open the access to Med. Sea if it's denied, correcting the missed opportunity she had in the 1800s.
    OTH, if it's mostly/only used for training there after new CV/Ns appear, no big deal if it can't use the Bosporus!
    There are no advantages to basing the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea... quick access to the Med is useless...
    It can use the Med. Sea to go to Atlantic, bypassing Scandinavia, GIUK gap &/ the English channel- & get off Africa & L. America faster. It can also go via Suez to the Indian Ocean & enter the S. Atlantic/Pacific by sailing around S. Africa/Australia.
    Do you have any evidence to support that?
    no, but training in flight ops is better done in good weather which is a luxury in the Barents Sea & N. Atlantic. Repairs in dry docks r also done faster in good weather.
    Well that is something they need to sort out for themselves... competition is natural and normal...
    not for the Russians!
    Russia is a centralized state & the government there is the source of their well being, not private enterprise that exists with its permission.
    Crimea must be as self sufficient as possible & 1 way to help its economy is to base many big ships & their rotary/fixed wing squadrons here.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2285
    Points : 2275
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  hoom Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:23 am

    If Turkey is stupid enough, Russia will forcibly open the access to Med. Sea if it's denied
    At the height of its power the Royal Navy couldn't force passage of the Bosphorus.

    There is no way that Russia could force the Bosphorus without a massive nuke war first.


    I simply can't understand how people don't understand the Montreux Convention almost exclusively benefits Russia, its very clearly in the interests of Russia to maintain it as long as possible unless or until Turkey leaves NATO and the US actually collapses, at which point the current inconvenience actually becomes not an issue so it might as well be maintained.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:35 am

    If Turkey is stupid enough, Russia will forcibly open the access to Med. Sea if it's denied, correcting the missed opportunity she had in the 1800s.
    OTH, if it's mostly/only used for training there after new CV/Ns appear, no big deal if it can't use the Bosporus!

    If it was a Russian strait that NATO wanted to head through and Russia needed to deny NATO access they would not use their navy... they could just line up thousands of artillery pieces... no matter their age and shoot at anything trying to sail through... whether it is Grad or Uragan or Smerch rockets or 100mm MT-12 anti tank towed guns through 122mm guns, 125mm tank guns, 152mm artillery, 160mm mortars, 180mm artillery pieces, 203mm towed and self propelled guns, and 240mm mortars... towed and self propelled... there would be no way to get a speed boat through that gap let alone a carrier or other large vessel.

    It will be 20 years before they have two new CVNs so the Kuznetsov is not going to be designated a training carrier for 20-30 years.

    It is not the most amazing carrier ever built but it is certainly more capable than the tiny Hermes class that Britain took to the Falklands.

    Air support is very valuable... even though the Russian Navy, much like the Russian Army is equipped to not expect air control, having air control makes many things a lot easier.

    It can use the Med. Sea to go to Atlantic, bypassing Scandinavia, GIUK gap &/ the English channel- & get off Africa & L. America faster.

    The GIUK gap is unimportant... only during WWIII would it even matter, and in that case it likely wont be leaving the arctic ocean anyway as it will be providing a aircraft platform where aircraft can operate and launch missiles at any US AEGIS cruisers trying to shoot down ICBMs and SLBMs over the arctic and it can have potshots at bombers and cruise missiles and with S-500 on some cruisers have potshots at US ICBMs and SLBMs coming towards Russia too.

    It can also go via Suez to the Indian Ocean & enter the S. Atlantic/Pacific by sailing around S. Africa/Australia.

    Via the NSR they can make it to those places anyway.

    no, but training in flight ops is better done in good weather which is a luxury in the Barents Sea & N. Atlantic. Repairs in dry docks r also done faster in good weather.

    Don't confuse easier with better... a bit more winter training for the German army before WWII might have made a serious difference... instead they had to learn about frostbite the hard way.... pun intended.

    Crimea must be as self sufficient as possible & 1 way to help its economy is to base many big ships & their rotary/fixed wing squadrons here.

    Soldiers and Sailors don't have as much to spend as tourists... makes more sense to not base as many military personnel there to free up the beds for tourists instead.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:18 pm

    There is no way that Russia could force the Bosphorus without a massive nuke war first.
    no, they can use tactical nukes against the Turkish military; NATO is already mulling expelling Turkey & could still survive w/o going to the Black Sea.
    It will be 20 years before they have two new CVNs so the Kuznetsov is not going to be designated a training carrier for 20-30 years. It is not the most amazing carrier ever built but it is certainly more capable than the tiny Hermes class that Britain took to the Falklands.
    with all the other means at Russia's disposal, I doubt it would make a big difference even as a capable combat unit.
    As the PLAN's CV-16, it's better be kept near Eurasia- the SC Sea is semi-closed & the Black & Med. Seas r closed basins vital to RF & PRC security.
    Via the NSR they can make it to those places anyway.
    at a lot higher cost in time & $.

    a bit more winter training for the German army before WWII might have made a serious difference...
    It wasn't training but lack of cold resistant equipment & clothing. It could prolong the war but they would've lost anyway, even if Moscow was taken.
    Soldiers and Sailors don't have as much to spend as tourists... makes more sense to not base as many military personnel there to free up the beds for tourists instead.
    they'll live on their ships or in the barracks/base housing; their families would be joining &/ visiting them, increasing consumption of goods & services.
    The hotels there r now as empty as in Georgia.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2610
    Points : 2594
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:35 pm

    Nato isn't considering Turkey out of Nato. The amount of misinformation on this forum is a riot with matters like these. There is no Suspension Provision in the North Atlantic Treaty.

    This matter has been looked at before. Generally, there are only three things to do.

    Wait out the guy in charge until someone new comes into power, if the country, in this case, the Turks do not obey the terms of NATO no other member state is required to do the same for them. So they will technically still be in Nato but no assistance of any kind will be given.

    There is a method but hard to do by using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to boot a country from Nato but it's very iffy it could be done.

    Etc unless a Country openly chooses to leave Nato or goes to war against another Nato state that country will always be in Nato.

    The Turks aren't getting removed from Nato this wet dream you all keep pushing and thinking is reality is pure fantasy they have to much important land to be removed from nato.



    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:06 pm

    Even though NATO has no provision to suspend and expel misbehaving member states, Sari argues there is another option: "material breach" under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
    According to Article 60, material breach of a bilateral treaty by one party allows the other party to invoke the breach as "ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part."

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/national-security/2019/october/why-nato-cant-nbsp-just-kick-turkey-out

    Member States Could Declare Turkey in “Material Breach” and Suspend or Terminate their Treaty Relationship
    https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/

    Even if Turkey stays in NATO, she won't close the straits to Russia absent the state of war between them.
    After a new canal bypassing Istanbul is built, she'll need to recover the cost of it & will avoid creating tensions in the region that will result in less traffic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9aKoBeQDiM

    https://www.turkeyhomes.com/blog/post/the-istanbul-canal-project-bypassing-the-bosphorus-straits
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:25 pm

    no, they can use tactical nukes against the Turkish military; NATO is already mulling expelling Turkey & could still survive w/o going to the Black Sea.

    Dude... take a step back... the Russian carriers are intended to ensure sea lands of communication and transit remain open for Russia and her trade partners... using tactical nukes against Turkey will have a terrible economic effect on Russia and Turkey beyond any proportion of what benefit they might get from basing carriers there.

    As far as Russia is concerned WWIII is not going to be survivable... they are taking measures to ensure that... they are creating doomsday weapons to make sure it is not an option.

    They are not going to be nuking any country just to get large ships out of the Black Sea in to the Med... and if they did the countries that border the northern med will likely feel they are now free to use tactical nuclear weapons against Russian ships and submarines... which is also bad for Russia.

    with all the other means at Russia's disposal, I doubt it would make a big difference even as a capable combat unit.

    The Russian Army has developed with a mindset that they don't expect to be covered or protected by the Russian Air Force... they have their own air defence capacity and unlike their western counterparts wont expect airforce fighters to come in and save the day by clearing the skies of enemy aircraft and munitions.

    The Russian Navy is the same.

    Both the Russian Navy and the Russian Army enormously benefit from having aircraft to both extend and expand their vision and reach, though right now for the Navy that is limited with Ka-31 AEW aircraft and the K being serviced and upgraded. Even just the Ka-31s it is a very valuable capability able to extend the radar horizon by climbing to 4km altitude and being able to see low flying threats out to 250km in all directions.

    With a carrier they can fly out to inspect targets in both peace time and war... had the American AEGIS class cruiser shown a bit more common sense and asked a nearby carrier to identify the incoming threat they were pissing their pants over then just under 300 people would have survived the encounter, and less people would hate the US of A.

    It means flexibility and capability and information to allow commanders of surface groups to make better decisions by providing them with more accurate information.

    As the PLAN's CV-16, it's better be kept near Eurasia- the SC Sea is semi-closed & the Black & Med. Seas r closed basins vital to RF & PRC security.


    Areas already covered by land based air power. They need carriers to project power into new regions to support trade and cooeration with the rest of the world so the west can't box them in and sanction them to death.

    at a lot higher cost in time & $.

    Are you not listening?

    The NSR is getting investment and development from Russia because it is a shorter route from Asia to Europe... it saves two weeks in transit time from Japan to the Netherlands... that is its whole point.

    It wasn't training but lack of cold resistant equipment & clothing. It could prolong the war but they would've lost anyway, even if Moscow was taken.

    It was training as well... and I don't mean training to fight as a formation, I mean to fight in very cold weather. When it got really cold the Germans tended to hunker down and just try to survive. Siberian trained units kept fighting and took advantage of their weapons and equipment continued to function in such conditions.

    The Germans lost large numbers of fingers and toes and soldiers to frostbite because they didn't know how to prevent it.

    Napoleon captured Moscow, but that didn't help him very much either... the Germans were exterminating the Soviets which gave the Soviets little choice but to fight back.

    they'll live on their ships or in the barracks/base housing; their families would be joining &/ visiting them, increasing consumption of goods & services.
    The hotels there r now as empty as in Georgia.

    Moving extra sailors there is not a good solution.

    Nato isn't considering Turkey out of Nato. The amount of misinformation on this forum is a riot with matters like these. There is no Suspension Provision in the North Atlantic Treaty.

    Turkeys location is to valuable for the west to consider giving up the high ground overlooking the enemy... The chances of Turkey leaving NATO is like the chances of Turkey getting in to the EU.... zero.

    Turkey developing in to a good Russian trade partner (gas plus quite a few other projects) and generally Russia friendly country is what is important... whether they are part of NATO doesn't really matter very much.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:22 am

    using tactical nukes against Turkey will have a terrible economic effect on Russia and Turkey beyond any proportion of what benefit they might get from basing carriers there. ..They are not going to be nuking any country just to get large ships out of the Black Sea in to the Med... and if they did the countries that border the northern med will likely feel they are now free to use tactical nuclear weapons against Russian ships and submarines... which is also bad for Russia.
    It'll show that Russia is also ready to use nukes to defend her interests in future wars, according to her doctrine.
    If Russia gets full control of the straits she never had before, the Black Sea will be closed to non-coastal states' navies unless on friendly visits; Greece won't shed a tear over Turkey's losses & the VMF can then enter the Med. Sea at will. The Black Sea is no more worth starting WWIII over than the Caribbean Sea was in 1962. The long term benefits r bigger than the costs.
    Areas already covered by land based air power. They need carriers to project power into new regions to support trade and cooperation with the rest of the world so the west can't box them in and sanction them to death.
    The Chinese stated/showed with their exercises that their CV/Ns will be patrolling the SC Sea & W. Pac.
    Outside of Eurasia, only Africa is worth deploying to, & it can be reached from the Med./Red Seas.
    L. America can be covered "by land based air power" from Cuba, Nicaragua & Venezuela already. The refitted Adm. Nachimov CGN will be able to do its mission w/o the Adm K. or any other CV/N, for that matter: https://regnum.ru/news/economy/2770119.html

    China will have a few CVNs by 2035 & may send them to E. Pac. & even W. Atlantic via the future mega Nicaraguan Canal, bypassing all other chokepoints & the NSR.
    The NSR is getting investment and development from Russia because it is a shorter route from Asia to Europe...
    still, they'll need to dedicate icebreakers & pass the Bering Strait & stormy Bering Sea, with Alaska bases & USN SSNs on alert ready to do some damage. Also to preserve planes, they'll need to fly cross country; all that costs a lot of $-only to deploy to the Pacific where the PLAN could help the Pac. Fleet, if need be.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:31 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link, text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:31 am

    It'll show that Russia is also ready to use nukes to defend her interests in future wars, according to her doctrine.

    It'll show that Russia is batshit crazy and is prepared to murder people in enormous numbers just so it can sail into the Med.

    Russia will never nuke Turkey first. They might return fire, but they wont nuke them first... that is just silly.

    If Russia gets full control of the straits she never had before, the Black Sea will be closed to non-coastal states' navies unless on friendly visits; Greece won't shed a tear over Turkey's losses & the VMF can then enter the Med. Sea at will. The Black Sea is no more worth starting WWIII over than the Caribbean Sea was in 1962. The long term benefits r bigger than the costs.

    Russia doesn't need to control those straits... just like they don't need to control the GIUK gap either.

    The Black Sea only allows coastal states and friendly visits at the moment.

    Greece is not really relevant in this... even if they privately approve they will never openly support Russia nuking Turkey... or even just using force to gain control of the straits.

    You can't compare access to the Med with the Cuban missile crisis...

    The Chinese stated/showed with their exercises that their CV/Ns will be patrolling the SC Sea & W. Pac.

    When you only have one and it is brand new and untested you don't go on a long road trip... you keep near your house to test things out and make sure everything works as you want it to work.

    As they increase their navy they will look further afield and look at ways it can support their interests in terms of international trade and operations.

    L. America can be covered "by land based air power" from Cuba, Nicaragua & Venezuela already.

    Hahaha... you might tell the American government that they can manage all their european affairs with land based air power in London, Germany, and Poland... no need for all those carrier groups and landing forces... just three airbases in each region will be fine...

    NOT.

    The refitted Adm. Nachimov CGN will be able to do its mission w/o the Adm K. or any other CV/N, for that matter: https://regnum.ru/news/economy/2770119.html

    It will be more capable and more flexible and safer with a carrier operating with it.

    China will have a few CVNs by 2035 & may send them to E. Pac. & even W. Atlantic via the future mega Nicaraguan Canal, bypassing all other chokepoints & the NSR.

    By 2035 they could sail over the north pole during summer because there likely wont be any ice there at all...

    still, they'll need to dedicate icebreakers & pass the Bering Strait & stormy Bering Sea, with Alaska bases & USN SSNs on alert ready to do some damage.

    They intend to promote a lot of traffic via the NSR, so that wont be an issue... and Russian ports will be much closer and more able to render assistance than any US ports... the NSR follows the Russian coastline.

    Also to preserve planes, they'll need to fly cross country;

    What are you talking about?

    From all the new land airfields being built in the north if the K positions itself near the pole with a few cruisers and other ships to protect it aircraft from land bases could fly up to the pole and be refuelled by aircraft from the K using buddy refuelling pods to spend a lot more time in the area patrolling for threats...

    all that costs a lot of $-only to deploy to the Pacific where the PLAN could help the Pac. Fleet, if need be.

    The PLAN helping the Pacific Fleet? Like they are in Syria currently?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:39 am

    GarryB wrote:It'll show that Russia is batshit crazy and is prepared to murder people in enormous numbers just so it can sail into the Med.
    if only Turkish military is hit, there won't be many civilian casualties.

    Russia will never nuke Turkey first. They might return fire, but they wont nuke them first... that is just silly.
    if they close the straits in peacetime, it'll be an act of war by a nation allied with nuclear armed states-thus, using nukes against it won't violate, & will be in accordance with, the RF military doctrine.

    Russia doesn't need to control those straits... just like they don't need to control the GIUK gap either.
    as long as Turkey keeps them open in peacetime, she can control them.

    The Black Sea only allows coastal states and friendly visits at the moment.
    Turkey does; but those NATO ships visits r aimed at Russia, just like their so-called FONOPS in the SC Sea r aimed at China.

    You can't compare access to the Med with the Cuban missile crisis...
    exactly; even if tactical nukes r used, there's no threat to US & EU to invoke the article 5 & nuke Russia to protect Islamist Turkish "shit hole", as some call it, aspiring to be an empire again, which been fighting Europe & Russia for most of its history.
    When you only have one and it is brand new and untested you don't go on a long road trip... you keep near your house to test things out and make sure everything works as you want it to work.
    true, but her trade will be mostly overland, so SLOC protection in the Indian Ocean is also near S. China & her allies Thailand & Pakistan.

    Hahaha... you might tell the American government that they can manage all their european affairs with land based air power in London, Germany, and Poland... no need for all those carrier groups and landing forces... just three airbases in each region will be fine...
    A couple or more years ago the US deployed extra AF planes to Japan to cover the absence of a CVN in W. Pac; even though the US CSGs r to impose will on others, this event shows that they r not indispensable. As u stated many times, the VMF CBGs will be for defending Russia's trade with friendly regimes- but if it can be done with less, why spend more on deploying the Adm. K across N. Atlantic & the NSR? https://news.rambler.ru/weapon/43119617-v-rossii-nazvali-sposob-unichtozhit-vse-avianostsy-ssha/?updated

    It will be more capable and more flexible and safer with a carrier operating with it.
    in what way more capable and flexible? it doesn't even need a tanker following it like the Adm. K does!

    By 2035 they could sail over the north pole during summer because there likely wont be any ice there at all...
    they'll send their icebreaker just in case.

    What are you talking about?
    weather & ice damage. as mentioned before, the flight deck will be covered with ice from the sea spray & snow.

    The PLAN helping the Pacific Fleet? Like they are in Syria currently?
    they have more common interests there than in the ME.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:09 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2610
    Points : 2594
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:01 pm

    Using nukes against the turks for closing the straights would be insanity on Russia's part because everyone will turn against them at that stage.

    Are you that ignorant to think you can use Nuclear weapons so freely and get away with it.

    The crap I see people say here is hilarious.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:25 pm

    A lot of countries r already against Russia, & she won't be the 1st & 2nd to use nukes- both times it was the US, besides using depleted uranium shells that cause cancers for years afterwards.
    They also used bioweapons in Korea & Agent Orange, a chemical weapon, in SE Asia- all 3 r the WMD.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:08 am

    if only Turkish military is hit, there won't be many civilian casualties.

    So all they need to do is develop clean nuclear weapons that only kill people in uniform.

    America has a similar technology... well actually it is called denial... we deny that innocent civilians were killed in that wedding party be bombed... they were killed by our bombs in a war zone so by definition they were the bad guys and we have nothing to be ashamed about.

    if they close the straits in peacetime, it'll be an act of war by a nation allied with nuclear armed states-thus, using nukes against it won't violate, & will be in accordance with, the RF military doctrine.

    If they close the straits in peacetime without a valid reason then Russia might push them on it... but I suspect it would be more along the lines of sanctions rather than nukes... Russia and Turkey have a bit of trade at the moment and that is only likely to increase over time... especially with the US and EU giving them the cold shoulder for defending their interests in Syria and not towing the party line of Russia is bad and Assad is bad and Iran is bad.

    Turkey is being practical and is working towards a real solution... the EU and US are being censored .

    as long as Turkey keeps them open in peacetime, she can control them.

    So what? The rules are not secret and Turkey seems to be enforcing the rules fairly.

    Did you notice the Black Sea did not suddenly fill up with US ships... the US wanted it to, but Turkey didn't allow it because the rules don't allow it.

    It wasn't that Turkey was being pro Russia or anti US... it was following the rules set down by international agreement... now if that means they control it then that is fine... as long as they follow the rules why would Russia care?

    Turkey does; but those NATO ships visits r aimed at Russia,...

    Of course they are... the US does not give a shit about those NATO countries that are on the boundary of the BS.... they wanted to turn the Ukraine and seize Sevastopol for themselves as a nice big NATO base... but they screwed up badly.

    Currently the rules are quite restrictive as to what US ships can enter the Black Sea and how long they can remain there... if Russia uses force to break that international agreement then there wont be any rules and the US will sail carriers into the black sea just to piss Russia off.

    The current situation suits Russia better than any alternative... Putin isn't one of those dumb fucking American presidents who thinks if they can destabilise and attack that things might change for the better for them.

    Such gambling is very destructive and in the last decade or so has resulted in the growth in Iranian power in the middle east and a lot of suffering and violence... but they live in america and own shares in construction companies and arms companies who make enormous profits in times of war so keep the wars coming... America loves a war economy... WWII got them addicted...

    exactly; even if tactical nukes r used, there's no threat to US & EU to invoke the article 5 & nuke Russia to protect Islamist Turkish "shit hole", as some call it, aspiring to be an empire again, which been fighting Europe & Russia for most of its history.

    Are you blind?

    If Russia attacked Turkey with tactical nuclear weapons all of NATO would become best friends against the evil Russia... look at current news... all whistle blowers are bad.... except one with the dirt on Trump... invasions are OK except ones not sanctioned by the US... so Saudi Arabia can invade and demolish Yemen but it was a world crisis when Saddam invaded Kuwaite.

    And let me explain why if there is any real need to. Iraqi aggression against a fucked up monarchy with zero democracy risked Saddam acquiring too much oil and risked saudi arabia as a potential next step for him to pay his bills after squandering Iraqs wealth in a pointless war against Iran for a decade.

    We were told we had to save the Kuwaitis... do it for democracy in the region... the only democracy in the region is Iran of course... men got the vote in Kuwaite in about 2005 or 2006, while the women still have no say... but the world had to get together to save democracy and fight bad guy Saddam who risked gaining a monopoly of a large percentage of oil in the region... it would make him too strong and risk uniting arab countries together which would have given them too much power regarding oil prices. Remember it was Saddam who ignored the other OPEC countries and sold oil to the US and saved their butts but that was quickly forgotten. I remember carless days here in New Zealand... most families only had one car and you got a sticker that allowed you to drive the car on specific days of the week to reduce fuel consumption...

    But then if the world must react to invasions in such a dramatic way then why no Desert Storm II for Yemen?

    The west has SA under control so they can do what they like... no doubt they not only got permission... it was probably the CIA that created the war in the first place.

    In such a climate do you really think the US and EU would sit on the sidelines if the Russians attacked Turkey?

    Get real...

    true, but her trade will be mostly overland, so SLOC protection in the Indian Ocean is also near S. China & her allies Thailand & Pakistan.

    China has spent a small fortune on its multiple silk roads from Asia to Europe, but they also have interests in Africa and central and south america. they can access one side of south america directly across the pacific, but the NSR allows them to access the other side of the continent too... as well as shaving two weeks off the sailing time to Europe so they will be going that way anyway.

    A couple or more years ago the US deployed extra AF planes to Japan to cover the absence of a CVN in W. Pac; even though the US CSGs r to impose will on others, this event shows that they r not indispensable.

    Well if you don't have a pen then you can scratch notes in the dirt... but pen and paper are the preferred solution and certainly the most flexible and portable option.

    As u stated many times, the VMF CBGs will be for defending Russia's trade with friendly regimes- but if it can be done with less, why spend more on deploying the Adm. K across N. Atlantic & the NSR?

    Well lets use a real example of Venezuela... the US almost invaded... if Putin had warning that they were actually going to invade.... ie preparing a carrier group to go there... without a carrier group of his own he might send some aircraft, but announcing an exercise with the Venezuelan navy that will involve naval exercises off the Venezuelan coast for a few weeks would be their best solution to prevent that US invasion... exercises can be extended indefinitely...

    in what way more capable and flexible? it doesn't even need a tanker following it like the Adm. K does!

    A cruiser operating in the open ocean detects blips on its radar 300km away... what are they? Are they hostile? Are they military or civilian? A cruiser on its own has no way of knowing. As it approaches islands what is hiding behind those islands? Those radar blips that are ships... who are they and what are they doing?

    If they are 300km away that is several hours of fligh time for a helicopter... several hours when you tie up your helicopter... you couldn't send a corvette to investigate as it would be pretty vulnerable on its own outside the cover of the cruiser.

    With a carrier you can send an aircraft at 900km/h which will get to the target in about 20 minutes... it can take a closer look and pass back relevant information about the target... often they can also deal with some targets... like low flying Harpoon missiles.

    Even without sending your fighters you have much more persistant longer range radar coverage that means you have a much better idea of what is around your ship on the water and in the air... a carrier adds detail to your situational awareness and reach to your eyes and ears and also claws if need be.

    If you do find yourself in a combat situation it means you can fight from further away, you see the enemy earlier and are able to deal with them from further away which is safer for your ships.

    they'll send their icebreaker just in case.

    That would be sensible.

    weather & ice damage. as mentioned before, the flight deck will be covered with ice from the sea spray & snow.

    Land based airfields deal with ice and snow for 8 months of the year... an aircraft carrier should be able to deal with it too... worst case scenario... pump sea water through the engine cooling system to heat it up and use hot salt water to clear ice off the deck...

    The deck of a carrier is like a road... it needs to deal with volumes of water sprayed on it anyway... so build in some features that can be used to solve the problem...

    they have more common interests there than in the ME.

    And they have areas where they don't have common interests too... why take the risk?

    Using nukes against the turks for closing the straights would be insanity on Russia's part because everyone will turn against them at that stage.

    Are you that ignorant to think you can use Nuclear weapons so freely and get away with it.

    The crap I see people say here is hilarious.

    Honestly I was thinking almost exactly the same thing but when you mention the taboo of nuclear weapon use it reminded me of comments from the US military and lots of US politicians regarding mini nukes for bunker busting and I thought that the US would justify it if it was in their interests to do so... and currently I would expect a few nuke warheads might be attached to Standards and PAC-3 Patriots to defeat hypersonic manouvering weapons soon too as a first stage plan.

    But I do agree the Russians wont use them unless they are desperate or stupid and they are not either of those.

    Can't say the same for the US leadership...

    A lot of countries r already against Russia, & she won't be the 1st & 2nd to use nukes- both times it was the US, besides using depleted uranium shells that cause cancers for years afterwards.
    They also used bioweapons in Korea & Agent Orange, a chemical weapon, in SE Asia- all 3 r the WMD.

    Not to mention plans for Star Wars and later bunker busters...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:25 am

    So all they need to do is develop clean nuclear weapons that only kill people in uniform.
    well, if they don't want to kill many civilians, conventional means can be used- a while ago Syrians shot down a TAF F-5. Russia has a base in Armenia & can neutralize AD/AF & sink all Turkish Navy ships in the BS before landing Marines & VDV in the straits.

    We were told we had to save the Kuwaitis... do it for democracy in the region...
    in the US, they been saying to stop the aggression, protect the KSA & liberate Kuwait- democracy wasn't mentioned.
    but the NSR allows them to access the other side of the continent too... as well as shaving two weeks off the sailing time to Europe so they will be going that way anyway.
    I doubt they'll send their CBGs that way- easier & faster to sail to E. coast of L. América via Nicaraguan Canal or around Cape Horn/Good Hope. They'll likely have a CVN &/ MEU in the Indian Ocean 24/7/365 anyway & could get to Europe via Red & Med. Seas.

    Well if you don't have a pen then you can scratch notes in the dirt...
    Japan & Guam r unsinkable a/c carriers; unlike the IJN before 1945, NK has 0 carriers & her AD/AF/Navy could be decimated as was done in Iraq & Libya, even w/o a CVN.

    without a carrier group of his own he might send some aircraft, but announcing an exercise with the Venezuelan navy that will involve naval exercises off the Venezuelan coast for a few weeks would be their best solution to prevent that US invasion...
    a naval exercise doesn't need to involve a CVN.
    A cruiser operating in the open ocean detects blips on its radar 300km away... what are they? Are they hostile? Are they military or civilian?
    civilian air routes & airline schedules r known; interrogate them on the radio, if they don't give the right answer, shoot them down. Even if they send a fighter for visual checks, there may be a civilian looking B-747 full of drones & CMs. But the Adm. Nakhimov will have enough defensive armaments to defend against them.

    Even without sending your fighters you have much more persistant longer range radar coverage that means you have a much better idea of what is around your ship on the water and in the air...
    The Adm. Nakhimov could carry 1-2 Ka-31s &/ drones for EW. Also, a few Tu-95/142s & A-50/100s with tanker support+ MiG-31 escorts could fly between Cuba/Venezuela & Kola to cover it on its transit across the Atlantic. An armed nuclear icebreaker can also tow a barge with 12s of Ka-31s & drones.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 9363
    Points : 9470
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  JohninMK Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:50 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    well, if they don't want to kill many civilians, conventional means can be used- a while ago Syrians shot down a TAF F-5.
    Wasn't it an RF-4?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:58 pm

    My bad, correct.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  GarryB Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:58 am

    well, if they don't want to kill many civilians, conventional means can be used- a while ago Syrians shot down a TAF F-5. Russia has a base in Armenia & can neutralize AD/AF & sink all Turkish Navy ships in the BS before landing Marines & VDV in the straits.

    They don't need to do anything.... Turkey has not closed the straits and are not likely to.

    Even if they did the worst the Russians would do would be to get their biggest ship and sail through and try to force the Turkish bluff.

    It will stop before shots are fired.

    in the US, they been saying to stop the aggression, protect the KSA & liberate Kuwait- democracy wasn't mentioned.

    Talk about arse about... the opposite of that is true... the KSA wasn't mentioned... Desert Storm was about returning Kuwaite to democracy... which they did not have at that time or for a good decade afterwards in terms of giving men the vote... they still don't have democracy because women don't have the vote even today.

    Saddam was a hero in the US... he fought the Iranians... he broke the blockade in the 70s and supplied the US with oil... but he committed the cardinal sin... he decided to start uniting the Arab countries in the region and therefore risked invading the KSA... which is a definite red line for the US.

    I doubt they'll send their CBGs that way- easier & faster to sail to E. coast of L. América via Nicaraguan Canal or around Cape Horn/Good Hope. They'll likely have a CVN &/ MEU in the Indian Ocean 24/7/365 anyway & could get to Europe via Red & Med. Seas.

    There is no Nicaraguan Canal...

    Japan & Guam r unsinkable a/c carriers;

    No they aren't... because the primary feature of an aircraft carrier is that it can move with the naval forces it is supporting... the so called unsinkable aircraft carriers is bullshit... you don't have to sink a carrier to make it non operational.

    a naval exercise doesn't need to involve a CVN.

    Of course it doesn't, but this exercise is a deterrent... and a corvette and a few frigates is not going to deter an invasion.

    civilian air routes & airline schedules r known; interrogate them on the radio, if they don't give the right answer, shoot them down.

    The US AEGIS class cruiser that shot down an Iranian Airbus contacted the "Target" multiple times to get it to identify itself and it didn't respond so they did shoot it down and murdered hundreds of people. They tried to contact it by speaking to the unidentified F-14 aircraft that just took off from the airfield... it is presumed the Airbus heard the message but as it was not an F-14 assumed they were talking to someone else and ignored it. Besides if it was a military aircraft what is to stop it claiming to be a civilian private aircraft flying internationally from one place to another... how are you going to tell whether they are telling the truth or lying?

    Even if they send a fighter for visual checks, there may be a civilian looking B-747 full of drones & CMs. But the Adm. Nakhimov will have enough defensive armaments to defend against them.

    If it is an aircraft in civilian markings your interceptor can escort it as it flys past the naval group... if it starts spewing out drones and countermeasures it can gun the aircraft down easily enough fairly rapidly... but tell me... what is a group of ships going to do... how long before they realise it is a trojan horse... it would probably launch nearly its entire payload of drones before the surface force realise they are under an attack... which means they get much less warning and have to deal with all those drones... whereas with interceptors the threat would have been recognised much quicker and there would be rather few threats to deal with.

    But if it was a civilian aircraft... they would also know that as well and those interceptors could escort that aircraft past the carrier group and on its way and then return to normal patrol... problem solved... that is what I mean by flexible... reach and vision.

    The other point is the Nakhimov is not out there to deal with threats on the way to where it is going... an engagement on the way means it needs a supply ship sent with replacement weapons and fuel for the helos and other stores.  A carrier on the other hand will be flying CAP all the way to they will be carrying the needed fuel to support those operations anyway.... and shooting down a B-747 filled with drones would be quite straight forward... compared with dealing with 80 plus tons of drones that B-747 might have deployed when it discovered the surface group.

    With an Aircraft Carrier the AWACS platform probably would have given away the presence of the surface group but not its location so the B-747 would need to locate the number and location of the ships before launching its attack... which gives the carrier group time to intercept and examine.


    The Adm. Nakhimov could carry 1-2 Ka-31s &/ drones for EW. Also, a few Tu-95/142s & A-50/100s with tanker support+ MiG-31 escorts could fly between Cuba/Venezuela & Kola to cover it on its transit across the Atlantic. An armed nuclear icebreaker can also tow a barge with 12s of Ka-31s & drones.

    Yeah, and Russian soldiers could be armed with pointed sticks and duct tape... but it makes rather more sense to spend the money and develop real support equipment that can be used all over the place to do the job properly instead of half arsing it.


    Last edited by GarryB on Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:16 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Firebird

    Posts : 1094
    Points : 1128
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Hypothetical scenario:Combined USA vs combined Russian fleet in mid Pacific. What happens?

    Post  Firebird Sat May 15, 2021 7:14 pm

    This is obviously a hypothetical question, as the combined US and Russian fleets are never going to have a "showdown" in the Mid Pacific. However, the question does raise lots of interesting questions re the current effectiveness of both fleets.

    Here's the scenario.
    All US and all Russian fleets are approximately equidistant from the nearest US and Russian naval bases.
    Surface and submerged vessels are in a confined area. Air support is possible - either naval air, or the separate airforces. No nuclear forces will be used. There will be no strikes on either country's mainland.. apart from direct logistics support perhaps.

    So what would happen, both quickly and to vessels that survive the initial onslaughts.

    The US has superior numbers in surface ships, aircraft carriers and planes, supporting air force planes.
    Russia has superiority in missile tech - attack and defence.
    Radar is debateable. Russian *probably* has superior electronic warfare options, although the US might claim otherwise.

    So what do people reckon would happen? Would there be a winner, or would both surface fleets basically be decimated quickly, with surviving subs scurrying off aas quickly as possible?

    How effective would each sides missiles be? Which equipment (air, surface, submerged) would be most effective? Would either sides arnaments be jammed successfully? Either in part or wholly?
    How successful would Russia be in defending its ships with S-400 etc? Or would America's numbers mean a saturation attack from whatever survived Russia's first onslaught? Would leading weapons like Tsirkon, Kinzhal, Iskander etc be very high strike rates? Would America's far slower weapons be easy to shoot down, if numbers were braodly similar?

    I'll give my answer shortly, butwould be intersted to hear other opinions first.

    Firebird.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10843
    Points : 10988
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  kvs Sat May 15, 2021 7:33 pm

    Such academic questions are not all that interesting since the scenario envisaged will never happen. Any Russian naval force
    deficiency will be compensated by avoidance of confrontation where the US fleet has an advantage and the use of nuclear weapons.
    Any real confrontation with the USA will see the use of nuclear weapons. Only the idiot deciders in the USA have this bizarre notion
    that Russia will submit as a colony because it is too afraid to use nuclear weapons.

    These exceptional idiots fail to account for the fact that escalating from tactical nukes to strategic means that the USA gets glassed.
    So the USA itself can't willy nilly use nukes without paying for it and hard. Why is this a consideration only for Russia?

    In terms of conventional engagement, Russia has superior hypersonic and supersonic anti-ship missile systems. This neutralizes the
    whole US fleet in its ability to operate in proximity to Russia's shore. The US can have dozens of times more ships than Russia but that
    will not change this constraint. Even for naval operations, the US is fixated on air power. It has no capacity to defeat Russia
    in the air inside Russia or even 2000 km from its borders. Essentially nil with a small chanced created by a surprise strategic nuclear strike.
    But such surprises are not possible thanks to launch on warning. Again, the idiots in Washington think that their B-2 non-standoff bombers
    will be flying over Russia and dropping bomb loads WWII style. This breath taking inanity is an indication of just how unhinged US deciders
    are and why they are dangerous.

    Unless there is a confrontation tomorrow, the current ship number differences do not matter. Russia is building new vessels with much
    more potency than similar class ships from the USA. The US is not replacing its fleet with super advanced new designs all that fast.

    Big_Gazza, elconquistador and 4channer like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11555
    Points : 11623
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  PapaDragon Sat May 15, 2021 7:44 pm


    USN wins, flawless victory

    Numbers alone speak for themselves

    Also kvs is right, this discussion is pointless

    franco and walle83 like this post

    avatar
    owais.usmani

    Posts : 849
    Points : 847
    Join date : 2019-03-27
    Age : 35

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  owais.usmani Sat May 15, 2021 7:55 pm

    Any direct confrontation between USA and Russia anywhere on the planet will only last 30 minutes. After that, there will be eternal silence.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 8030
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos Sat May 15, 2021 7:58 pm

    Russian navy isn't equoped to fight in the middle of the ocean. US navy wins.

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2779
    Points : 2779
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Big_Gazza Sun May 16, 2021 2:14 am

    China takes advantage of a golden opportunity and launches a nuclear strike against the fully deployed USN, conveniently arranged in a big "hit me right here" pattern easily visible by satellite. thumbsup

    Russia follows up and erases any survivors. Twisted Evil

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10843
    Points : 10988
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  kvs Sun May 16, 2021 3:11 am

    Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't equoped to fight in the middle of the ocean. US navy wins.


    Why would anyone want to fight in the middle of the ocean in a pure conventional war with available tactical nukes?
    It's not even academic, its just utterly pointless and thus will never happen. The USA can't force Russia to fight
    in the middle of the ocean only using conventional forces and your implicit assumption is that US carriers will
    give it the edge. Those carriers will be removed with missiles that no CIWS can handle. And then we have
    the submarine aspect. Here Russian attack submarines have superior missile systems as well. American Tomohawks
    are not going to take out the Russian Navy.

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 8030
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Isos Sun May 16, 2021 9:36 am

    He said hypotetical situation. That doesn't mean it will be this way. He didn't include nuks. I just answered to that.

    But I agee with you.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Navy vs US Navy - Page 14 Empty Re: Russian Navy vs US Navy

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:12 pm