VMF vs. USN scenarios

How would it possibly benefit Russia having a fleet designed to take on and defeat the US Navy mid any ocean?

Russias fleet is supposed to defend Russia, something it does perfectly... no country or combined group of countries could survive attacking Russian territory.

The fleet of the US is to dominate the worlds oceans and to ensure the continued flow of money and goods between allies and trade partners and where possible deny the same to rivals.

You could say it does that well enough most of the time though trade between Iran and the world and Venezuela and the world and Russia and the world would cease if you took that literally, which means it does not achieve its goals completely.

But what does that actually mean?

A US force would have plenty of air power advantages over a Russian fleet too far away from land to have air protection, but then even just with todays anti ship and anti sub weapons the US would struggle.

The reality is that both fleets would most likely disengage and leave the battle space because WTF do they want to lock horns with that for?

What would be the point of winning that piece of ocean when your country is in ruins before you get home?

The US Navy has an enormous advantage in numbers and air power in remote locations away from air power, but a Russian Navy will never look like a US Navy because they are not and don't intend to dominate the worlds oceans on their own, but the ability to project power would be useful and they will be expanding their ship numbers over the next decade or two, especially in larger ship types to operate with their new 40K ton helicopter carriers.

GarryB wrote:How would it possibly benefit Russia having a fleet designed to take on and defeat the US Navy mid any ocean?

If you need to defend your interests say in South America, you need to be able to deploy your navy and eventually commercial convoys there through sea areas threatened by USN. That is the kind of things a blue fleet navy does.

Far ocean fleet is not needed to defend the national territory.

You could say it does that well enough most of the time though trade between Iran and the world and Venezuela and the world and Russia and the world would cease if you took that literally, which means it does not achieve its goals completely.

I assume you are aware the the USN has stolen and sold the oil sent per sea by Iran to Venezuela not long ago right? What happens if that is a Russian ship, where would tensions between both countries go if that was the case? Russia could not do anything and would need to take that slap, that is why they keep such so low profile defending countries like Venezuela or Cuba, they cannot escalate at all in theater and that means they would need to resort to steps that put their homeland at risk.

What would be the point of winning that piece of ocean when your country is in ruins before you get home?

The point is that the stronger navy deters the weaker one from getting involved in potentially dangerous situations where they don't have escalation dominance. Today it is the VMF that makes way for the USN. That has a cost in terms of lost influence and commercial relationships. Quite a lot in fact.

The US Navy has an enormous advantage in numbers and air power in remote locations away from air power, but a Russian Navy will never look like a US Navy because they are not and don't intend to dominate the worlds oceans on their own, but the ability to project power would be useful and they will be expanding their ship numbers over the next decade or two, especially in larger ship types to operate with their new 40K ton helicopter carriers.

Partially in agreement. A blue water navy is indeed intended to dispute sea control with the USN far from Russia, otherwise why to bother? Russia has big advantages with their better AD and above all AShM technology. But naval air power is needed in the long run.

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

Which is also the motto of the RVSN; After us - silence

Russia has no plans to offset the US navy globally. Zero. If Venezuela can be conquered by the US navy, then it is not properly
defending itself. Russia cannot pay and substitute for the military capacity of countries around the world. But Russia does not
need its navy to defeat US carrier groups. It needs some Tu-160s. Basing them in Cuba would shut down US imperial games
in the Caribbean theater.

11E wrote:motto of the RVSN; After us - silence

....and for anybody talking about any direct confrontation between USA and Russia, that is all there is to it.

If you need to defend your interests say in South America, you need to be able to deploy your navy and eventually commercial convoys there through sea areas threatened by USN. That is the kind of things a blue fleet navy does.

Far ocean fleet is not needed to defend the national territory.

So what you are saying is that for Russia to continue to trade with Venezuela they need 13 carrier battle groups and hundreds of destroyers and cruisers.

Russia does not need to deploy its entire fleet to the middle of any ocean to protect their trade lines.

The vast majority of the Russian fleet will be in Russian waters most of the time, particularly the north sea route through Russian waters, but they don't need a lot of very big ships for that... for international operations they will need larger ships than Frigates and Corvettes, but worst case scenario the presence of an aircraft carrier with AEW or an AWACS platform to prevent surprise attacks and a group of ships able to defend themselves will thwart any interest any US or HATO ship would have in picking a fight.

if it comes to all of Russian ships vs all of US ships then that is WWIII and neither navy will be significant except in the added destruction their SSBNs inflict.

The Russian Navy is to boost foreign trade and to make Russia independent of the west and the US... without a strong navy they will be at the mercy of the west and the US to let them trade and not to destroy potential partners with regime change operations... and we know what sort of future Russia would have in that case.

I assume you are aware the the USN has stolen and sold the oil sent per sea by Iran to Venezuela not long ago right?

Well exactly... Iran and Venezuela need to be smarter, and Russia needs to expand its Navy so it has enough ships to keep an eye on its own trade, though I think things will have to become rather more desperate for the US before they start attacking Russian ships or ships trading with Russia... something like an economic collapse or civil war in the US perhaps?

What happens if that is a Russian ship, where would tensions between both countries go if that was the case?

But they don't have the balls to actually do that to a Russian ship. Simply because Russia could use it as justification to do the same to them to embarrass them.

Russia could not do anything and would need to take that slap,

The Somali pirates don't have a fleet comparable with the US fleet yet they seem to be able to highjack a ship in open waters... it is not that hard actually.

Most American trade goes by sea so in many ways America would be more vulnerable to national piracy than Russia would... which is why they wouldn't bother.

That is not the same as saying they would not goad a third party into doing something stupid... saying they will stand behind them... so far behind them they likely wont see them...

that is why they keep such so low profile defending countries like Venezuela or Cuba, they cannot escalate at all in theater and that means they would need to resort to steps that put their homeland at risk.

I disagree... Russia does not need a fleet like the US to protect its international commerce relations... in fact their Karakurt long endurance corvettes in many ways could be described as long endurance patrol ships... with enough weaponry to deter an enemy landing troops on the ships they are escorting, but not so much to pose a challenge to anyone no matter whose waters they need to pass through.

A destroyer sized ship with a lot more SAMs, and a lot more launch tubes for anti sub missiles, anti ship missiles and anti torpedo torpedoes and extra SAMs would be excellent for patrol duties, while as part of a surface action group supporting a landing or visits to allies it could carry land attack cruise missiles too.

The point is that the stronger navy deters the weaker one from getting involved in potentially dangerous situations where they don't have escalation dominance.

Escalation dominance?  How about a corvette escorting a group of tankers or cargo ships... if it has Onyx missiles and anti sub missiles and a range of SAMs it is still a corvette so it is not going to take on the entire US fleet, but it has the fire power to sink a few ships and shoot down a few threats including aircraft and destroy a few subs as well as defend itself from a range of enemy weapons like Harpoon and Tomahawk, or torpedoes.

To block Russian trade with a country how many ships and subs would America be prepared to lose?

Right now obviously they really only have Corvettes for escorts, but their upgraded Destroyers and upgraded Cruisers could take that role very soon and use their size to achieve endurance.

Ironically for escorting ships like tankers from Iran to where-ever a smaller ship actually makes more sense because it would be cheaper and tie up fewer resources. With a helicopter and rear mounted armoured speed boats that can carry troops, it would be useful for anti piracy duties and anti US defence from boarding parties too while not being too expensive to operate.

Ultimately Iran and Venezuela should train some troops to operate on their ships to defend themselves from pirates like the US and UK as well as the Somalis and others...

Today it is the VMF that makes way for the USN.

Not true at all, the rights and laws of the sea are observed by both sides but sometimes the USN takes advantage of certain agreements it has not signed and tries to take advantage and has in the past ended up getting rammed for their trouble...

That has a cost in terms of lost influence and commercial relationships. Quite a lot in fact.

The US does not have that level of dominance. Russia does not have significant trade and commercial links with countries around the world because it was easier to trade with the EU and the US and China.

Now their trade ties with the EU and US are essentially cut, but they have filled the void of components and products they imported from the west by making those things themselves... well now is their opportunity to start selling such things to the rest of the world because with the value of the ruble they can sell much cheaper than the west and still make a good profit.

A blue water navy is indeed intended to dispute sea control with the USN far from Russia, otherwise why to bother?

They don't need to control the waterway and keep exclusive use, denying it to others... they just need to ensure the safety of their traffic which demands far fewer ships, and is much easier to achieve, but just as financially useful in terms of boosting trade and gaining customers for the purposes of boosting trade.

Russia has big advantages with their better AD and above all AShM technology. But naval air power is needed in the long run.

You can't assure the safety of your ships without decent AEW or preferably AWACS and fighter aircraft.

Now you could go a different way and perhaps go with a giant airship for persistent AWACS, with nuclear power batteries and solar panels and even a flat upper surface for launching and recovering drones, and decide tiny carriers based on their helicopter carriers will be good enough using Ka-52s for fighters to save money.

Of course the intercept performance will be seriously limited and while they might be good for shooting down incoming missiles flying at sea level they can't move around and shift defence rapidly like a jet fighter could.

A VSTOL fighter could be a better option but such aircraft are by design horribly expensive and limited in performance... honestly the money you waste trying to get it to work it would be better spent just making two CVNs and modifying some Su-57s to operate from them...

But then we have discussed such ideas to death in each of their respective threads.

Russia has no plans to offset the US navy globally. Zero. If Venezuela can be conquered by the US navy, then it is not properly
defending itself. Russia cannot pay and substitute for the military capacity of countries around the world. But Russia does not
need its navy to defeat US carrier groups. It needs some Tu-160s. Basing them in Cuba would shut down US imperial games
in the Caribbean theater.

Russia should not waste time and money and effort to get parity or an advantage over the US in numbers... the USN is intended to dominate the worlds oceans at one time, Russia doesn't need that or want that, but they will need to assure access to certain places at specific times and a modest sized navy with large ships can achieve that without blowing out the wallet like the US Navy does for the US.

A strong coordinated navy is a good thing and a useful thing going forward... to protect Russian interests, not to threaten anyone elses... though of course Russia developing a decent navy on its own will be seen by the US as a threat to their monopoly of the worlds oceans... tough cookies...

1. Use Harmony SONAR arrays and place all those out in the pacific, dont let the U.S. know before they try to impose some kind of underwater treaty.

2. Harmony will go cue Liana satellites.

3. Liana satellites will go cue yasen class subs to target ships.

4. Launched from underwater all ships nearby are destroyed, Futlyar is the longest range torpedo so all subs become wasted ass well because of the nuclear reactor SONAR arrays.

The Russian fleet is not big and split into five bits.... in this hypothetical situation all the Russian ships would head back to base and any US ships or subs chasing after them to pick a fight could be sunk with Onyx and Ovtet.

Of course it is all a very hypothetic situation.
And yes, the point was that nukes "don't exist" or won't be used.

The reason is, I'm trying to establish just how the numbers vs superior missiles situation might play out.
We could just as easily say "1/4 of each fleet and air supports".

I would suspect that Russia could sink the US surface fleet in a non jammed environment fairly easily.
Its probably a while before the whole of the Russian fleet is protected with S-400. So that might mean sheer numbers make sections of the Russian fleet vulnerable to American missiles.
Similarly, how big are the numerical differences? And how poor are American missiles?

Where it could get really complex is when we look electronic warfare and jamming.
Could America jam Kinzhal, Tsirkon and the older Russian missiles? Could America jam S-400 and similar?

My suspicion in that US jamming success would be partial at best. And Russian jamming success would be greater. I reckon the US surface fleet would be sunk. What I'm not sure on is how much of the Russian surface fleet might be hit. Assuming similar location speeds on both sides.

As an example, does anyone know how a refitted Kirov might fare in defending surface ships from a US attack? How many missiles and jets could it take out? How effective sorties of Tu-22 and Tu-160 with might be in numerical terms vs a mass carrierborne US fighter onslaught? Esp with some Russian surface assets in support?

So to sum up, I'm sure  the US surface fleet would be gone. It would basically be unable to shoot down Ru missiles.
I think Russia would defend itself against a lot of  US missiles and shoot them down, but might run out of missiles itself eventually due to sheer numbers of US jets. Just a guess.
However, many carrier borne jets would be unable to leave the carrier in my scenario. The threats would be from ground based American bomber aircraft.

Perhaps EW might allow some of Russia's surface fleet to survive?
Both fleets would be well advised to send their sub fleets out of the engagement zone.

Is that accurate?

In this hypotetical scenario US Navy would enjoy an enormous advantage over ВМФ; the numerical, composition and tonnage advantage of US Navy would be too crushing to be counterbalanced by the superiority of the anti ship missiles and defenses on board ВМФ's units.

ВМФ is designed as a defensive "attrition" Navy ,conceived to act in a coordinated way with medium range bombers (and those days МиГ-31К) to insulate, in brown sea sectors, and progressively downgrade and destroy groups of enemy surface units until theirs utter defeat.

In the scenario proposed by you the surveillance, numerical ,tonnage and force concentration capabilities would be all in US Navy's favour that would likely achieve an easy victory.

Oh man this is going to trigger so many people

*gots his popcorn*

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Oh man this is going to trigger so many people

*gots his popcorn*

Not going to trigger anyone with a reasonable understanding of things... if Mindstorm's post was not factual, you would have the VMF engaging in all sorts of "hot spots" all over the world, which they don't do. Because it would be extremely irresponsible and would force them to "go nuclear" for trivial issues of foreign policy. And there would be not need to grow their blue fleet navy as they are doing. No surprises here.

GarryB wrote:So what you are saying is that for Russia to continue to trade with Venezuela they need 13 carrier battle groups and hundreds of destroyers and cruisers.

No. They need a decent amount of big displacement / high capability vessels and in a balanced situation, proper air power. A basic level of deterrence is ensured once the USN cannot take out a VMF detachment easily and without the certainty that they will have no losses or that they will be absolutely minimal.

Russia does not need to deploy its entire fleet to the middle of any ocean to protect their trade lines.

Rather the other way around, Russia only has the trade lines that they can protect.

The vast majority of the Russian fleet will be in Russian waters most of the time, particularly the north sea route through Russian waters, but they don't need a lot of very big ships for that... for international operations they will need larger ships than Frigates and Corvettes, but worst case scenario the presence of an aircraft carrier with AEW or an AWACS platform to prevent surprise attacks and a group of ships able to defend themselves will thwart any interest any US or HATO ship would have in picking a fight.

Basically agree. You don't need to have more vessels, you need to be dangerous enough that the bully prefers not to pick a fight with you. That is within reach for VMF in the next 10-15 years.

if it comes to all of Russian ships vs all of US ships then that is WWIII and neither navy will be significant except in the added destruction their SSBNs inflict.

Yes the scenario is a bit of a stretch but in general it can be generalized to other situations that could actually happen.

The Russian Navy is to boost foreign trade and to make Russia independent of the west and the US... without a strong navy they will be at the mercy of the west and the US to let them trade and not to destroy potential partners with regime change operations... and we know what sort of future Russia would have in that case.

Yeah we agree on that. For that to be real, you need to be able to defy blockades and piracy acts essentially anywhere in the world ocean including high seas.

though I think things will have to become rather more desperate for the US before they start attacking Russian ships or ships trading with Russia... something like an economic collapse or civil war in the US perhaps?

Since they are continuously ramping up tensions, it will happen sooner or later.

But they don't have the balls to actually do that to a Russian ship. Simply because Russia could use it as justification to do the same to them to embarrass them.

The proper way of escalating is in theater, otherwise your off-theater response enables another from your opponent, that you may not like. That is a difficult to predict game to play.

Most American trade goes by sea so in many ways America would be more vulnerable to national piracy than Russia would... which is why they wouldn't bother.

Why do you think there are resident USN fleets in every maritime region of the world? They would be there in a matter of hours or days at most and kick your balls.

A destroyer sized ship with a lot more SAMs, and a lot more launch tubes for anti sub missiles, anti ship missiles and anti torpedo torpedoes and extra SAMs would be excellent for patrol duties, while as part of a surface action group supporting a landing or visits to allies it could carry land attack cruise missiles too.

I have not said that the force composition or roles of the VMF needs to mimic the USN. But they need to be on par in terms of naval warfare military potential. Fixation on land attack is something VMF does not need and happily does not pursuit.

Escalation dominance?  How about a corvette escorting a group of tankers or cargo ships... if it has Onyx missiles and anti sub missiles and a range of SAMs it is still a corvette so it is not going to take on the entire US fleet, but it has the fire power to sink a few ships and shoot down a few threats including aircraft and destroy a few subs as well as defend itself from a range of enemy weapons like Harpoon and Tomahawk, or torpedoes.

You yourself explained in all detail few days ago how easy would be for a CBG to use their aircraft outside of the corvette's range and overwhelm its defences. Apart that corvettes are not ocean going ships...

Right now obviously they really only have Corvettes for escorts, but their upgraded Destroyers and upgraded Cruisers could take that role very soon and use their size to achieve endurance.

Yes of course, once they have a blue water navy they will be able to do the things blue water navies do...

Ultimately Iran and Venezuela should train some troops to operate on their ships to defend themselves from pirates like the US and UK as well as the Somalis and others...

What about PLAN and VMF protecting commercial convoys? Seems military fiction but may turn a reality in few years.

LMFS wrote:What about PLAN and VMF protecting commercial convoys? Seems military fiction but may turn a reality in few years.

Is already happening with the Russian Navy escorting Iranian oil tankers in convoys to Syria.

LMFS wrote:What about PLAN and VMF protecting commercial convoys? Seems military fiction but may turn a reality in few years.

They have land border, why would they have to?

Also if they ever end up being stupid enough to get themselves in the situation where they have to fend off USN over a convoy then RIP and they deserve everything that USN does to them

lancelot wrote:Is already happening with the Russian Navy escorting Iranian oil tankers in convoys to Syria.

I referred join missions in the high seas, but yeah, you are right. Essentially it is already happening.

PapaDragon wrote:They have land border, why would they have to?

Not between the two countries, of course

Also if they ever end up being stupid enough to get themselves in the situation where they have to fend off USN over a convoy then RIP and they deserve everything that USN does to them

A situation like what, having legal commercial relationships with other countries in this world??

I see that 200% winner spirit of yours of the type: "don't revolt against your Western overlords or you will be punished. I say it for your own good"

Thanks for the advice but you can keep it for yourself.

LMFS wrote:...I see that 200% winner spirit of yours of the type: "don't revolt against your Western overlords or you will be punished. I say it for your own good"

Thanks for the advice but you can keep it for yourself.

Oh yeah those massive numbers of Gorshkov frigates they keep ordering just scream "winner spirit"

PapaDragon wrote:Oh yeah those massive numbers of Gorshkov frigates they keep ordering just scream "winner spirit"

I assume the orders are not further being increased because of component fabrication bottlenecks.
Those reduction drives for example. It is useless to increase orders if the components aren't available.

lyle6 wrote:Any scenario which precludes usage of nuclear weaponry between nuclear powers is pointless. Russia's navy as designed for distributed lethality is only effective if the available offensive potential of even a single small corvette is enough to crush entire fleets wholesale - meaning nukes. Once nukes are off the table, suddenly raw tonnage and superior force concentrations matter so much more. That the USN shines in such onanist fantasies says a lot, really.

A single corvette is enough to crush entire fleets....

You are smoking something strong.

Of course it is all a very hypothetic situation.
And yes, the point was that nukes "don't exist" or won't be used.

That renders it even more unrealistic... it is like demanding the Russians don't use long range anti ship missiles or the US does not use carrier based aviation...

In the scenario proposed by you the surveillance, numerical ,tonnage and force concentration capabilities would be all in US Navy's favour that would likely achieve an easy victory.

But of course the fundamental problem is that it would never happen in the first place... Russia has no reason to send all their ships out into the middle of nowhere with no support.

Rather the other way around, Russia only has the trade lines that they can protect.

Reasonable, and their future plans for CVN and destroyers and cruisers as well as the helicopter carriers they are building now show an interest in expanding those trade lines by expanding their capacity to operate away from Russian defended airspace.

Yes the scenario is a bit of a stretch but in general it can be generalized to other situations that could actually happen.

After reading Firebirds post it seems he wants us to tell him that with the new hypersonic anti ship missiles even with just new corvettes in tiny numbers and new frigates in tiny numbers and only upgraded cold war destroyers and upgraded cold war Cruisers that the Russian Navy is now the best in the world.

The simple fact is that the new Corvettes can defend themselves but not much more, they simply don't carry enough missiles to mount an attack on a much larger force let alone defend itself from a large sustained attack.

The Frigates are better armed but not enough to make them better able to take on an enemy than two corvettes.

Individually they are very capable ships and in groups as part of teams they will be excellent, but they need new destroyers and new cruisers and at least one carrier to operate away from shore.

Working as a team they don't need hundreds of ships, but they need a lot more than they currently have.

I would say the Russian Navy would be a serious challenge for the Royal Navy because I really don't think much of the F-35, but I think they would struggle against the French in terms of surface ships. Include subs and the Russians would beat both together despite their serious lack of modern ships and subs.

For that to be real, you need to be able to defy blockades and piracy acts essentially anywhere in the world ocean including high seas.

I rather doubt any country would try to stop a Gorshkov Frigate let alone an upgraded Kirov... for most roles at sea a Corvette would do and be cheap at doing it, but I suspect their upgraded Udaloys will get that mission with their size allowing endurance and range and their new armament is good enough.

Since they are continuously ramping up tensions, it will happen sooner or later.

Biden has backed down a few time... tension is good for him, but he knows an actual conflict is really not in their interests.

The proper way of escalating is in theater, otherwise your off-theater response enables another from your opponent, that you may not like. That is a difficult to predict game to play.

It the other side starts hijacking your ships then obviously you have to reply in kind so when they complain you can offer to release the ship if they release yours and to stop breaking international law...

Why do you think there are resident USN fleets in every maritime region of the world?

Cause they are ?

They would be there in a matter of hours or days at most and kick your balls.

Do what now?

When fighting speed boats with HMGs as main armament, they panic and shoot down airliners... when it comes to ball busting the USN does not spring to mind.

Fixation on land attack is something VMF does not need and happily does not pursuit.

It is very important in many situations.

In a Falkland Islands type situation a few cruise missiles armed with concrete piercing submunitions could be launched and programmed to fly down the line of a runway releasing munitions as it goes reducing the threat to Russian ships and friendly ships in the area at minimum risk of killing anyone...

You yourself explained in all detail few days ago how easy would be for a CBG to use their aircraft outside of the corvette's range and overwhelm its defences. Apart that corvettes are not ocean going ships...

Think of it as a padlock on a gate or door... it is a barrier to cross. Most honest people will see the padlock and move along. The criminals will think there is something valuable there and risk trying to get inside.

The point is that a Corvette operating with a tanker or cargo ship basically tells US and UK and French and other busybody interfering navies not to try to board these ships or there will be problems.

Now in normal peace time conditions those western forces are not going to sink that corvette so they can board a ship it was escorting... and if they did try when they started the attack the Corvette can communicate via Satellite their situation, which would likely also indicate the nearby western ships involved in such an operation which could be targeted using Onyx if necessary, or a nearby Yasen could deliver the present.

Having a range of 1,000km means that Corvette and SSGN can cover a large area of sea.

What about PLAN and VMF protecting commercial convoys? Seems military fiction but may turn a reality in few years.

Well USN actions and UK actions on behalf of the US make such actions necessary and reasonable.

Certainly a few mercs on board any container ship or tanker with PKPs and RPGs and a few SVDs and Kords should be reasonably safe from most pirate threats, whether they are in helicopters or speed boats.

I rather suspect it will come down to how often the US et al play such cards as to whether it is actually worth doing something about it.

I posted a video about the Karakurt and they mention it is more a patrol/policing type vessel intended for anti piracy missions.

A small craft is not totally suited to operate around the planet because as I have mentioned before a 20-30 day endurance would mean from Russia it would take 1-2 weeks to get to the Somali coast... with a 20 day endurance that means it is almost time to head home.

Obviously a larger vessel with more stores could operate longer, but larger ships would also cost more and be rather a bit of a waste for such a task.

The Karakurt with extra internal space and relatively small crew could operate with a support ship... the transit time is the killer because it is time it is not doing anything useful, so having a support ship with it it could remain for much longer periods and even replacement crews could be delivered to the ship if needed.

Its rear launched speed boats would also be ideal for the anti piracy job together with a helicopter...

They have land border, why would they have to?

I suspect he meant to their respective customers around the world and not between China and Russia.

Also if they ever end up being stupid enough to get themselves in the situation where they have to fend off USN over a convoy then RIP and they deserve everything that USN does to them

Yeah, I rather think the USN stupidity over commercial shipping is not something Russia or China have any control of let alone responsibility for.

Taking sensible measures is just being sensible.

Oh yeah those massive numbers of Gorshkov frigates they keep ordering just scream "winner spirit"

The US built LCS can do 12 knots and don't work, so they are winners... they just need to make more of them.

Have posted a video about future Russian ships and the shipyard owners say making one off designs is slow and complex, and that an order for serial production of 10-15 would enable them to produce at a good rate as long as there are no upgrades or changes for every ship...

Once nukes are off the table, suddenly raw tonnage and superior force concentrations matter so much more. That the USN shines in such onanist fantasies says a lot, really.

True, but while the USN does have a crushing advantage in numbers they are not all in such great states... half their carriers and carrier groups would likely need to head directly to port for repairs and upgrades they are currently in port waiting for... but then the Kuznestov is in the same boat at the moment... perfectly normal.

GarryB wrote:

Of course it is all a very hypothetic situation.
And yes, the point was that nukes "don't exist" or won't be used.

That renders it even more unrealistic... it is like demanding the Russians don't use long range anti ship missiles or the US does not use carrier based aviation...

In the scenario proposed by you the surveillance, numerical ,tonnage and force concentration capabilities would be all in US Navy's favour that would likely achieve an easy victory.

But of course the fundamental problem is that it would never happen in the first place... Russia has no reason to send all their ships out into the middle of nowhere with no support.

Rather the other way around, Russia only has the trade lines that they can protect.

Reasonable, and their future plans for CVN and destroyers and cruisers as well as the helicopter carriers they are building now show an interest in expanding those trade lines by expanding their capacity to operate away from Russian defended airspace.

Yes the scenario is a bit of a stretch but in general it can be generalized to other situations that could actually happen.

After reading Firebirds post it seems he wants us to tell him that with the new hypersonic anti ship missiles even with just new corvettes in tiny numbers and new frigates in tiny numbers and only upgraded cold war destroyers and upgraded cold war Cruisers that the Russian Navy is now the best in the world.

The simple fact is that the new Corvettes can defend themselves but not much more, they simply don't carry enough missiles to mount an attack on a much larger force let alone defend itself from a large sustained attack.

The Frigates are better armed but not enough to make them better able to take on an enemy than two corvettes.

Individually they are very capable ships and in groups as part of teams they will be excellent, but they need new destroyers and new cruisers and at least one carrier to operate away from shore.

Working as a team they don't need hundreds of ships, but they need a lot more than they currently have.

I would say the Russian Navy would be a serious challenge for the Royal Navy because I really don't think much of the F-35, but I think they would struggle against the French in terms of surface ships. Include subs and the Russians would beat both together despite their serious lack of modern ships and subs.

For that to be real, you need to be able to defy blockades and piracy acts essentially anywhere in the world ocean including high seas.

I rather doubt any country would try to stop a Gorshkov Frigate let alone an upgraded Kirov... for most roles at sea a Corvette would do and be cheap at doing it, but I suspect their upgraded Udaloys will get that mission with their size allowing endurance and range and their new armament is good enough.

Since they are continuously ramping up tensions, it will happen sooner or later.

Biden has backed down a few time... tension is good for him, but he knows an actual conflict is really not in their interests.

The proper way of escalating is in theater, otherwise your off-theater response enables another from your opponent, that you may not like. That is a difficult to predict game to play.

It the other side starts hijacking your ships then obviously you have to reply in kind so when they complain you can offer to release the ship if they release yours and to stop breaking international law...

Why do you think there are resident USN fleets in every maritime region of the world?

Cause they are   ?

They would be there in a matter of hours or days at most and kick your balls.

Do what now?  

When fighting speed boats with HMGs as main armament, they panic and shoot down airliners... when it comes to ball busting the USN does not spring to mind.

Fixation on land attack is something VMF does not need and happily does not pursuit.

It is very important in many situations.

In a Falkland Islands type situation a few cruise missiles armed with concrete piercing submunitions could be launched and programmed to fly down the line of a runway releasing munitions as it goes reducing the threat to Russian ships and friendly ships in the area at minimum risk of killing anyone...

You yourself explained in all detail few days ago how easy would be for a CBG to use their aircraft outside of the corvette's range and overwhelm its defences. Apart that corvettes are not ocean going ships...

Think of it as a padlock on a gate or door... it is a barrier to cross. Most honest people will see the padlock and move along. The criminals will think there is something valuable there and risk trying to get inside.

The point is that a Corvette operating with a tanker or cargo ship basically tells US and UK and French and other busybody interfering navies not to try to board these ships or there will be problems.

Now in normal peace time conditions those western forces are not going to sink that corvette so they can board a ship it was escorting... and if they did try when they started the attack the Corvette can communicate via Satellite their situation, which would likely also indicate the nearby western ships involved in such an operation which could be targeted using Onyx if necessary, or a nearby Yasen could deliver the present.

Having a range of 1,000km means that Corvette and SSGN can cover a large area of sea.

What about PLAN and VMF protecting commercial convoys? Seems military fiction but may turn a reality in few years.

Well USN actions and UK actions on behalf of the US make such actions necessary and reasonable.

Certainly a few mercs on board any container ship or tanker with PKPs and RPGs and a few SVDs and Kords should be reasonably safe from most pirate threats, whether they are in helicopters or speed boats.

I rather suspect it will come down to how often the US et al play such cards as to whether it is actually worth doing something about it.

I posted a video about the Karakurt and they mention it is more a patrol/policing type vessel intended for anti piracy missions.

A  small craft is not totally suited to operate around the planet because as I have mentioned before a 20-30 day endurance would mean from Russia it would take 1-2 weeks to get to the Somali coast... with a 20 day endurance that means it is almost time to head home.

Obviously a larger vessel with more stores could operate longer, but larger ships would also cost more and be rather a bit of a waste for such a task.

The Karakurt with extra internal space and relatively small crew could operate with a support ship... the transit time is the killer because it is time it is not doing anything useful, so having a support ship with it it could remain for much longer periods and even replacement crews could be delivered to the ship if needed.

Its rear launched speed boats would also be ideal for the anti piracy job together with a helicopter...

They have land border, why would they have to?

I suspect he meant to their respective customers around the world and not between China and Russia.

Also if they ever end up being stupid enough to get themselves in the situation where they have to fend off USN over a convoy then RIP and they deserve everything that USN does to them

Yeah, I rather think the USN stupidity over commercial shipping is not something Russia or China have any control of let alone responsibility for.

Taking sensible measures is just being sensible.

Oh yeah those massive numbers of Gorshkov frigates they keep ordering just scream "winner spirit"

The US built LCS can do 12 knots and don't work, so they are winners... they just need to make more of them.

Have posted a video about future Russian ships and the shipyard owners say making one off designs is slow and complex, and that an order for serial production of 10-15 would enable them to produce at a good rate as long as there are no upgrades or changes for every ship...

Once nukes are off the table, suddenly raw tonnage and superior force concentrations matter so much more. That the USN shines in such onanist fantasies says a lot, really.

True, but while the USN does have a crushing advantage in numbers they are not all in such great states... half their carriers and carrier groups would likely need to head directly to port for repairs and upgrades they are currently in port waiting for... but then the Kuznestov is in the same boat at the moment... perfectly normal.

Garry I don't "want" posters to tell me anything... other than what the evidence would suggest.

I think I can see the key areas for debate.
I realise a corvette actually has very few missiles, either for attack on defence. And half a dozen US carriers would provide a lot of (otherwise rather shitty) missiles to shoot down. Given that I think a Kirov has a finite number of  missiles onboard of all varities, obviously even it would be vulnerable to a saturation attack in an unjammed environment. I understand the Kirov has around 300 missiles/torpedoes, plus 260 Smerch rockets/grenades etc, plus guns and 2/3 choppers and its EW suite.

In comparison an F-16 has 9 external hardwired carrying points (missiles, bombs and external fuel).
So if the Americans can get many fighters in the air before carrier destruction... that would be a major problem... jamming issues aside. Note in air to air terms, that US Sidewinder missiles have a tiny range eg 22 miles. And US Sparrow missiles are 20 to 80km - again nothing special.
US antiship missiles like HARM and SHrike again don't have great ranges (90 and 40 ish miles), so America must look to use shipborne missiles vs the Ru fleet. Similar situation with Penguin and Harpoon.. range is nowhere near Russian max ranges. Thats not a criticism of America BTW. Its an intelligent use of resources because why have  a massive range against modest opponents like Iraq and Somalia etc.

Ultimately the debate will revolve around the exact numbers. And the ability of each side to jam and counter jam.

Does anyone know the probably success rate of S-400 and similar vs US air to surface and ship to ship missiles? Does anyone know how many missiles the US and Ru airforce and fleets would muster?
Does anyone know the likely jamming and EW situation? How would a modernised Kirov fare vs a single US carrier?

Without such details it boils down to "US is a lot bigger" vs "pound for pound Russia is better because of its missiles". Which  doesn't really get us any further.

walle83 wrote:The US has 70 large missile destroyers, 22 cruisers, 10 aircrafts carriers with hundreds of fighterbombers, 9 large assault ships with fixed wings and 50 SSNs armed with dozzen of asm.

Even if Russia could sink some of vessels with thier "advanced" missile systems they would still be shit out of luck.

No they wouldn't.

Those ships barely can fight with their subsonic missiles, add to that, missiles are cheap compared to those ships.  Plus as soon as those US vessels enter Russian waters, guess what Russia's SSK's would do?  US can't even find them with their Poseidon's.

Those fighterbombers on the AC do not even have the range compared to Russia's missiles, so the missiles can strike first before those Jets take off. And they got nowhere to land.

You guys think Russia would go one on one in middle of ocean? Lol.

Anyway, if they decided to, Russia's long range Khinzals would be enough to sink large portion of US Navy before the Russian ships even get there. Then there are Zircons which would do the rest. Tomahawks are overpriced and rather pathetic in their performance in both land and sea.

But yeah, if It was a sea brawl, I don't think Russian ships would win just because of pure numbers. But good thing Russia invested heavily into long range, fast moving missiles, and air carriers for them.

Such a ridiculous conversation, it makes this site look like Reddit tier nonsense.