VMF vs. USN scenarios

miketheterrible wrote: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.

What use is long range asm against 50 SSNs that can appear anywhere? Thats like 2 subs against every Russian surface vessel and sub.

The few Russian vessels that can carry the Khinzals and Zircons would be targeted first by the US force, thats like 50 fighters against every vessel.

Well they already work on 10 Yasen, add to that some 10 Akula and 7 or 8 Oscar and 20 or so Kilo that's quite a powerfull sub force.

If they upgrade all of them with kalibr/Tzikon it will be dangerous to US navy for sure. Oscar can theorically carry 72 VLS plus some 28 weapons in the front for a mix of torpedoes/missiles. Akula have 40 weapons and could also carry missiles. 22 original kilo and 12 improved Kilo have 18 weapons which can be missiles with an upgrade for the first And they are also building ladas.

So if they carry only missiles for sniping US ships it could be something line :

10 Yasen x 32 VLS + 10 x 20 front weapons = 520 missiles
10 Akula x 30 missiles in the front = 300 missiles
8 Oscar × 72 VLS + 8 x 28 in the front = 800 missiles
24 kilo x 18 missiles = 432 missiles.


That's some 2042 missiles. Potentially Tzirkon but even oniks would be terrifying in such numbers.

And contrary to US sub they can attack from hundreds if km away.

The poseidon carrier could also be added since it can very well target carriers.

Tupolevs should also be counted since they are part of navy plan's to attack cartiers just like mig-31K. They could all target ships in the pacific with in flight refueling and very long range missiles like Kinzhal.

They have some 63 tu-22M and 55 tu-95.

So that 63 x 3 kh-32 = 189 kh-32
And 55 x 4 kh-101 = 220 kh-101
??? Number of kinzhal.

That's some 409 missiles + Kinzhal. And they will very soon introduce hypersonic longer range missiles for them too.

If they can send the carriers to the bottom very fast US navy will be left with ships carrying few harpoons that can be destroyed by even russian speed boats.

That would work only if they modernize all of them with missile capabilities which is happening but not for all.

Isos wrote:Well they already work on 10 Yasen, add to that some 10 Akula and 7 or 8 Oscar and 20 or so Kilo that's quite a powerfull sub force.

If they upgrade all of them with kalibr/Tzikon it will be dangerous to US navy for sure. Oscar can theorically carry 72 VLS plus some 28 weapons in the front for a mix of torpedoes/missiles. Akula have 40 weapons and could also carry missiles. 22 original kilo and 12 improved Kilo have 18 weapons which can be missiles with an upgrade for the first And they are also building ladas.

So if they carry only missiles for sniping US ships it could be something line :

10 Yasen x 32 VLS + 10 x 20 front weapons = 520 missiles
10 Akula x 30 missiles in the front = 300 missiles
8 Oscar × 72 VLS + 8 x 28 in the front = 800 missiles
24 kilo x 18 missiles = 432 missiles.


That's some 2042 missiles. Potentially Tzirkon but even oniks would be terrifying in such numbers.

And contrary to US sub they can attack from hundreds if km away.

The poseidon carrier could also be added since it can very well target carriers.

Tupolevs should also be counted since they are part of navy plan's to attack cartiers just like mig-31K. They could all target ships in the pacific with in flight refueling and very long range missiles like Kinzhal.

They have some 63 tu-22M and 55 tu-95.

So that 63 x 3 kh-32 = 189 kh-32
And 55 x 4 kh-101 = 220 kh-101
??? Number of kinzhal.

That's some 409 missiles + Kinzhal. And they will very soon introduce hypersonic longer range missiles for them too.

If they can send the carriers to the bottom very fast US navy will be left with ships carrying few harpoons that can be destroyed by even russian speed boats.

That would work only if they modernize all of them with missile capabilities which is happening but not for all.

Alot of maybe and perhaps. Today they do not have 10 Yasen or even 10 active Akulas (with or without new missiles).
And if your adding Tupolevs you might just add P-3s and P-8s also then. (114+98)

Why are people wasting their time on this idiotic nonsensical premise?

GarryB wrote: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.

More about that in the interview I posted in the naval news thread. Which again has a Russian incumbent official stating that they do not take the advice of so many well intentioned advisers of staying in Russia and not messing up with the big boys...

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.

Those weapons will indeed level the field in anything but the most extreme of cases / USN demonstrations of force. But that is still short of proper deterrence

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.

Yes individually they are the best of the best, but numbers and additional capabilities matter

It is very important in many situations.

Anything that goes beyond some Kalibr is not the focus of the VMF by now.

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.

You are talking about the US and Russian fleets meeting in the middle of an ocean... and you talk about F-16s and Sparrows?

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.

The important figures are not the ranges of missiles or types of missiles, but the number of ships and aircraft and their capacity to carry missiles.

Having  5 of the latest super dooper corvettes and 3 new Frigates means nothing if they carry 32-48 SAMs each... 8 x 50 is 400 at most... being generous with my rounding...  when the US has cruisers with 150+ missiles per boat and over 50 of them the missiles don't need to be great... and in fact they don't even need to be launched all at once to try to overwhelm.... they could fire one at a time.

Now you might argue that the more potent Russia Anti Ship missiles have a much better chance for a kill, and that is probably very true, but with about 12 fixed wing carrier groups and probably another 12 carriers for their marines with Harrier jump jets they will likely not run out of planes before Russia runs out of missiles and planes.

Obviously the US is sensitive to loses, but they can use all sorts of tactics to improve their chances and minimise loses.

Perhaps if you want a serious discussion you would be better to start by listing current US and Russian platforms with a general outline of their weapons and capabilities... and in doing that you might realise the situation you are suggesting.

Does anyone know the probably success rate of S-400 and similar vs US air to surface and ship to ship missiles?

It doesn't matter because Russia does not have any naval S-400s in service.... the only old ships they have with long range SAMs are the Slava and Kirov class cruisers and they are S-300F missiles or Rif as they are called... they have a range of 90km. The new upgraded Rif-M fitted upgrade the Kirovs has a range of about 120-150km which is no better than the S-350 Redut missiles going on their Corvettes and Frigates.

The S-350 is an amazing missile... very very capable and it will be an excellent replacement on land for the old S-300 batteries and a great way to boost numbers of missiles for mass attacks, but it is only part of the S-400 battery as a measure to boost numbers of missiles because TOR was too expensive to have in every battery.

TOR is now more affordable and very capable...

Does anyone know how many missiles the US and Ru airforce and fleets would muster?

The US would likely carry 50-100 times more missiles on 20-30 times more ships and it is just numbers pulled from my ass... it could be worse.

How would a modernised Kirov fare vs a single US carrier?

One on one the Kirov would likely kick its ass... though the carrier would likely just turn and run away before it gets to Granit range.

The Kirov would have the equivalent of the S-300 air defence system which could basically shoot down all the US planes and helicopters, and its other missiles could deal with anti ship missiles launched in its direction while the Granits would sink the carrier.

A US carrier with proper AEGIS support on the other hand would be much better defended and would not need to run away immediately... but still might and just use fighter aircraft range to fight at arms length. In which case the carrier can sit back and launch aircraft to launch missiles at the Kirov till the Kirov runs out of missiles and eventually it will sink it or it will run away too.

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.

Any further than what? The US is the global bully and needs a big navy... and it is huge... but not state of the art any more and has many failings they need to start to address. Russia just needs to put the new ships they have developed and tested into mass production and get some new destroyers and cruisers and a new CVN design going.

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.

I think the point of the discussion was that it was in the middle of an ocean.... taking away the key feature of Russias defensive fleet and giving most advantage to the US invasion fleet of aggression.

In the middle of the pacific with only ships, US navy wins easily even if they get some ships destroyed.

And that is the problem, when the fight is in the middle of the ocean a small defensive force is always going to be at a disadvantage to a carnivore predator like the US Navy that kills democracy and freedom around the globe.

A better scenario is to use the two fleets as intended... a US Naval invasion of Russia... the US would have the advantage of picking a target and engaging just one Russian fleet for all their navy to attack at once but I still don't think they could do it.

The approach and preparations would be spotted and MiG-31Ks can move very fast from location to location.

With the support of ground based air power and resources the Russian fleet would likely lose some ships and subs but it would be nothing like the number of ships the US would lose...

So if you want a scenario where Russia has proven superiority over the US Navy then as a force defending the homeland would be your best bet.

It would be a struggle because the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of the US still, but adding ground based missiles and aircraft makes those numbers mostly cannon fodder...

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

And even if they did both sides know it would escalate to WWIII and any remaining forces heading home will arrive to ashes.

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.

In the middle of the ocean they wouldn't reach. In self defence at home, which is what they were intended for they would do as you say...

Iskander is in mass production and I would say Kinzhal is likely in mass production too... the US would probably run out of ships before the Russians ran out of them.

Then there are Zircons which would do the rest. Tomahawks are overpriced and rather pathetic in their performance in both land and sea.

Zircons are not in service, but then the Tomahawks were withdrawn from naval use so they likely don't have a lot of them either.

What use is long range asm against 50 SSNs that can appear anywhere?

After they lose their surface fleet what are SSNs going to do?

The few Russian vessels that can carry the Khinzals and Zircons would be targeted first by the US force, thats like 50 fighters against every vessel.

Kinzhal is carried by MiG-31Ks.

Alot of maybe and perhaps. Today they do not have 10 Yasen or even 10 active Akulas (with or without new missiles).
And if your adding Tupolevs you might just add P-3s and P-8s also then. (114+98)

It is not going to happen... Russia has no reason to fight the US Navy, and even if they did it is never gathered in one place for it to ever happen.

Which again has a Russian incumbent official stating that they do not take the advice of so many well intentioned advisers of staying in Russia and not messing up with the big boys...

Obviously the west would love Russia to remain within its land borders... hell ... they complain when Russia moves troops within its own borders like recently on the border of Ukraine in response to Kievs moves and indeed to the Russian Far North and Far East.

But it is in Russias interests to expand its ability to project its interests anywhere on the globe and that is best done by its navy.

Yes individually they are the best of the best, but numbers and additional capabilities matter

They are still just Corvettes and Frigates, but if they continue with their work and get their destroyers and cruisers and CVNs to the same high standard then they are going to have a very impressive Navy.... it is never going to be huge in numbers, but they have a lot more ships to build yet.

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote: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.

This thread is degenerating in the predictable way with butthurt fanbois engaging in their usual inanity.    The idea of counting all US carriers as one pile
in such a silly confrontation scenario is imbecilic.   So the US would pull all of its carrier groups from around the world to one location to "kick Russia's
ass".   So Russia would just watch and wait instead of sinking these groups using Tu-160s or long range missile attacks?    Is this middle of the ocean
confrontation supposed to be some duel with the associated glove slaps?   What a joke.

That's the thing. All those tu-22's, bears and swans would be used to strike at those ships much farther away than those US vessels would even be able to detect.

It's just a shit thread.

Those bombers would not be useful that deep into the pacific, Russian navy would get destroyed in an open naval engagement period,, only delusional fanboys would try and argue otherwise

USN wins because they have away bigger navy and they have big navy because US is not land-connected to the world ,they need to protect their trade over the oceans .

Of course the most important reason they have big navy is to put blockade on other weak countries and bomb them to achieve the "US interests" .

On the contrary Russia is overland connected to the world and has no interests to steal and attack other countries like the US .

There is no need for Russia to such Navy ,just a smaller effective one to protect the Russian people , Russia introduced better subs and missiles and frigates than the US on the last two decades .

walle83 wrote:

What use is long range asm against 50 SSNs that can appear anywhere? Thats like 2 subs against every Russian surface vessel and sub.

The few Russian vessels that can carry the Khinzals and Zircons would be targeted first by the US force, thats like 50 fighters against every vessel.

I think this says it all... the enormous overwhelming advantage in destroyers and cruisers and aircraft carriers and it comes down to their advantage in nuclear powered attack submarines.

The simple fact is that the entire US Navy will never be assembled in any one ocean, and nor will the Russian Navy.

If the question you are wanting answered is can Russia send naval forces anywhere in the world and not worry about getting bullied by the US... the US bullies everyone, but I rather doubt they would escalate to the point where weapons are fired.

The current lack of large ships is a serious problem for Russia, but their new frigates and their upgraded cold war destroyers that they are treating like frigates are capable of operating anywhere... they are producing support ships that carry water supplies and food and ammo so a Russian warship can operate for longer periods away from a Russian port too, but the enlarged Gorskov frigates at about 8K tons will have more endurance and weaponry and should be better able to defend themselves further from home.

It is just a matter of time and being patient, but their training and new equipment seems to be excellent and as new stuff slowly gets into service some older stuff can be retired... they do have a lot of older smaller ships that could be scrapped and certainly putting their Corvette designs into mass production and their Frigate design has been cleared though an enlarged vessel seems to be what they want so that might take a little longer to get into the water and tested.

They have a navy that can defend Russia and they are working towards a navy that can defend their interests world wide.

What about zircon?

franco wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:What about zircon?

Not sure however the article is talking about this ship being able to find targets for and guide the land based coastal missile units while the Zircon is ship mounted.

The article title sure is bad translation in either way. Makes it even more funny it's aiming system for balls.

The news is that some reporter has heard about this stuff for the first time.

I think it is useful information to keep in mind for people who might think this or that Russian ship is under armed, or the Russian Navy is weak...

The ships are supported by ground based missiles and aircraft with missiles too... each corvette or frigate acts as a mobile radar system with built in SAM and gun defences that mean they can extend the reach and vision of Russian systems, but are not sitting ducks on their own.