VMF vs. USN scenarios

[quote="AlfaT8"]

Are you sure?  

Wikipedia: Range: Over-the-horizon (approx 50 nautical miles)

   AGM-84D (Block 1C): 220 km (120 nmi)
   RGM/UGM-84D (Block 1C): 140 km (75 nmi)
   AGM-84E (Block 1E) : 93 km (50 nmi)
   AGM-84F (Block 1D): : 315 km (170 nmi)
   RGM-84F (Block 1D): 278 km (150 nmi).
   RGM/AGM-84L (Block 2): 278 km (150 nmi)
   AGM-84H/K (Block 1G / Block 1J): 280 km (150 nmi)

Yes.. at least thats what Most Credible sources says..

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/harpoon-block-ii-anti-ship-missile/

Harpoon Block II propulsion details

The missile is propelled by a Teledyne Turbojet engine / solid propellant booster providing a thrust of over 600lb (272.2kg). The propulsion system provides high subsonic speed and range of 124km.

Have seen many reviews and all say Harpoons are very limited in Range with 124km. The are a few higher ranges harpoons
that are -prototypes- experiments that never made it into production using bigger fuel tanks and Land attack versions too , So my bet
is on the Naval Technology site on the correct info.  Looking at this other site..also Popular site suggest the same..

https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm

If you look under their list you will see most on your wiki list discontinued and below on their chart  ,The harpoons in service ,the Anti-ship version its range listed at 60+ nautical miles =~110+ km.. and the longer range versions in service (SLAM-ER) Surface Land Attack - Extended Range ~300km..  So that site suggest that the only in service with greater than 120km range are land attack versions. which are obsolete against warships.  Tomahaws also have many models and most of them canceled too. Should be no surprise all this missiles are very old back to the 70's the first versions. Why better to look for the official ones that NATO use. not the prototypes never made it into production.

But in any way.. it doesn't matter the harpoon sucked anyway. Norway have more modern anti-ship missiles with ~300km range.
That will be the official anti-ship missile of F-35. Still is subsonic so kind of so so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Missile#Joint_Strike_Missile

I think they will use the 9M317M Shtil-1 (SA-N-12B Grizzly) missile, which has an range of 50 km.
The 70 km range missile is the 9M317M3 Buk-M3 (SA-17C Grizzly).
Maybe, and I hope, they will use the 9M317M3 missile!

I suspect they might start with the 50km range missiles, but over time they will upgrade to 70km or longer range models eventually.

With the newer longer range missile design available it makes little sense to invest in production of the older design.

Clearly you dont see the problem.

Clearly I don't.

Is Irrelevant which frigate is better. It will not even matter if NATO have no frigates at all to compare.

The Frigate has a role in every navy... that is why they exist.

To suggest there is no need for them because they can't take on and defeat the enemies air force on their own is a poor argument.

if you RUssia bring a Frigate, NATO will bring what they have.. Destroyers and Cruisers with at least 1 aircraft carrier.

First of all Russia will not send a Frigate on its own against all of NATO.

Second of all Frigates are USEFUL... it would be bloody stupid to not have frigates because a frigate cannot singlehandedly defeat all your enemies.

NATO countries have lots of frigates because they are USEFUL.

US navy not even have Frigates.. don't know why the comparison. irrelevant that is the best frigate.

Oliver Perry Class?

So it will be limited by Coastal patrols
to be defended by Air Force or escorted by an aircraft carrier or a Kirov.

Sorry, but real world is not a computer game. You don't just play chess using Queen and King and ignoring the other pieces.

Frigates are useful during peacetime... they are handy for sending on anti piracy missions... they can perform the role at a fraction of the cost of sending a carrier or cruiser.

On their own they are vulnerable... like any ship is, but within a battle groups they add air defence and anti ship and land attack capability as well as anti sub capability too.

They are another set of sensors and weapons that can be added to the groups assets.

They use the same weapons and sensors as the larger vessels so are compatible and standardised reducing the costs of the larger vessels.

This also means the 6x Grigorovich class they will build will not be able be used to help in the defense of any allies away of Russian Territory unless is escorted by Bigger warships with S-300s or better defenses. Because will be overwhelmed by Any small airforce.

If an ally of Russia needs support from the Russian Army will the Russian Army send a division of cooks and parade guards, or will they send a fighting force?

Give the Russian Navy some credit...

Major enemy of Russian NAVY will not be NATO warships but Combat jets .

You might want to have a close look at how many countries maintain a decent enough airforce that could go out into the ocean and find some ships and attack them with modern capable weapons that will get through the defences of these Frigates... because there actually aren't that many.

They will exploit Russian weakness in airspace defense on its navy. Kirov cannot be in all parts at same time. Neither its Aircraft carrier.

Their new destroyer will have Poliment and Redut... a huge ass AESA likely to detect targets at 600+km and SAMs able to hit targets at 400km range... these frigates... if sent would need Destroyer support... not cruiser... and 2-3 destroyers and 2-3 frigates would be able to deal with anything most airforces could throw at them... on paper anyway.

IF Russia build only Gorshov class frigates , instead of just 4 they could build 2-3 more and have Frigates that could
Be used to lead battle groups ,With strong Sam defense capabilities. 2-3 Gorshov could be used as a replacement of 1 Kirov Class.

Why on earth would they want frigates to be cruisers?

They are building destroyers now too, and soon enough they will likely build a light cruiser or two to support their carrier groups.

And allow Russia to use their Frigates as Lead Ships and Project Power world wide.

Surely they should be using Corvettes to lead their expansion into the global scene... they can leave the anti piracy and maritime patrol duties to their fishing boats... armed with 152mm gun turrets and 800km range SAMs and 5,000km range cruise missiles... hypersonic of course...

i have a question.. anyone have any website or info that confirm Gorshkov-class frigate S-400 (48N6) missiles with 400km Range?

Will likely only carry a few large long range missiles (250km) and use the 4 missile adapter for each tube for what is basically a naval Vityaz missile compliment. 32 tubes would result in a payload of up to 128 Vityaz SAMs as a standard payload, while two Pantsir-S1 systems replacing Kashtan means 4 gatlings and 64 missiles.... able to engage at least 8 targets at a time.

As I mentioned before, ships are very vulnerable from aircraft, be it a gunboat, or be it a battlecruiser.

A gunboat generally lacks the radar range to see threats let alone the medium and long range SAMs needed to engage such threats.

A battle cruiser on the other hand has much more powerful sensors and much longer range missile defences and has rather less to fear from air power.

However in Massive Numbers launched at the same time things becomes complicated.

It is also the reason the Kirov class ships have a battle management suite and a range of vertically launched SAMs with lots of missile directors to allow lots of missiles in the air at once for use against lots of targets at once.

It has 8 Kashtan mounts... which means 16 30mm gatling guns which can shoot down subsonic missiles, plus 256 missiles designed specifically to shoot down low flying supersonic missiles. That is before you look at Rif-M and Klintock... and you also have guns firing proximity fused rounds out to 23km and of course a range of jamming equipment and decoys...

They would be exceptionally difficult to defeat on their own and most air forces would not be organised enough to mount an effective coordinated attack to ensure victory... if it had other vessels with it then it can multiply its ability to defend by all those extra missile directors and jammers and decoys... and of course those planes have to find it first.

@garryB

The Frigate has a role in every navy... that is why they exist.
To suggest there is no need for them because they can't take on and defeat the enemies air force on their own is a poor argument.

No one have said Frigates are not useful. even a patrol boat can be useful ,if you had some knowledge in tactics you will understand.
All im saying is that those Grigorovich will be very limited frigates in their use for purely defensive mode. cannot fight back an Airfoce..
and Gorshkov frigate can. NATO do not have such limitations ,even if their frigates are inferior because they have aircraft carriers always
helping in the defense.  easy to understand but  but you insist on arguments just for the sake of arguments. to make it look
you have a point.  when you not.

Frigates are useful during peacetime... they are handy for sending on anti piracy missions... they can perform the role at a fraction of the cost of sending a carrier or cruiser.

Yes, And corvettes are also useful ,patrol boats too and helicopters and tanks are all useful. thats not the point. The point is
gorshkov frigates can allow the Russian Navy to fight back an Airforce  and allow more flexibility to the Russian Navy how to deploy
their warships and the Grigorovish can only defend.

Why on earth would they want frigates to be cruisers?

Because they have very few and most not prepared to Fight back against an attacking Air-force..
Russia have only 1 kirov cruiser and 1 aircraft carrier that can help defend their warships against a long range Sniping Airforce that can launch their missiles beyond 100km ranges.  An effective air  defense needs to have the capability to be the one to Fire first and not allow the possibility to any enemy airforce to even try.  The best defense is offense and giving a chance to your enemy to keep trying is a mistake.. thats why.. next question?

They are building destroyers now too, and soon enough they will likely build a light cruiser or two to support their carrier groups

Yes and at the pace Russia is building warships it will be 2020 or 2025 and we will not see it .Russia needs warships NOW not in 2020 or more. that not only can defend well but also fight back back against sniping airforce..  Airforce can defeat Navy.. specially when this one only have small range Defense.  Those BUks SAMS defenses were NEVER intended to be used alone.. you need long range Sams to keep away any airforce. SO those Grigo Frigates with will need to always be attached to the only Kirov Russia have. If you had 2-3 Gorshov you could use them as a Kirov to defend your navy airspace from an airforce. and not have to depend on your very few strong Sam defenses  warships for  everything.as simple as that.

Will "likely" only carry a few large long range missiles (250km) and use the 4 missile adapter for each tube for what is basically a naval Vityaz missile compliment.

As far i understand the S-400s is not its only its missiles.. I don't think is as simple as to have reduct launchers and plug a long range missile and thats it. The land version have a big network of trucks with Radars ,Command Center and other stuff ,that i don't see how they are going to fit it on the Stealth Frigate.. specially the Nebo radars. You need more than one Radar for different kind of targets . and as you know stealth Frigate cannot have a lot of surface outside the boat or there will be no point for them to be stealth. The info have seen only points to the 9m96d missiles with 120k range.  which will be not bad against old antiship missiles but not good enough for F-35 300km anti-missiles.

To Vann7:
"Because most of them are old and not prepared to Fight back against an attacking Air-force.. "

Sorry, but you're wrong, if a ship is detected and identified by the airforce it cannot fight back it can only defend.



And your Harpoon D range may be correct (120km), but that's not the case with Harpoon F with 280 km range.
And in any case, let's not limit ourselves to Harpoon missiles only, and also take into account RBS-15, C-802, Jassm, NSM/JSM, all those missiles outrange S-300F of the Kirov.

etaepsilonk wrote:To Vann7:
"Because most of them are old and not prepared to Fight back against an attacking Air-force.. "

Sorry, but you're wrong, if a ship is detected and identified by the airforce it cannot fight back it can only defend.



And your Harpoon D range may be correct (120km), but that's not the case with Harpoon F with 280 km range.
And in any case, let's not limit ourselves to Harpoon missiles only, and also take into account RBS-15, C-802, Jassm, NSM/JSM, all those missiles outrange S-300F of the Kirov.

Kirov defense are 150km..and those harpoons of 280km range are discontinued models ,or land attack versions useless against warships. The harpoon antiship missile that today NATO use and sell to allies its range is ~120km .

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/harpoon-block-ii-anti-ship-missile/

and those NSM/JSM info came from me.. thanks .    F-35 missiles. but not everyone have them .  .. JSM not in service yet.

Vann7 wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:To Vann7:
"Because most of them are old and not prepared to Fight back against an attacking Air-force.. "

Sorry, but you're wrong, if a ship is detected and identified by the airforce it cannot fight back it can only defend.



And your Harpoon D range may be correct (120km), but that's not the case with Harpoon F with 280 km range.
And in any case, let's not limit ourselves to Harpoon missiles only, and also take into account RBS-15, C-802, Jassm, NSM/JSM, all those missiles outrange S-300F of the Kirov.

Kirov defense are 150km..and those harpoons of 280km range are discontinued models ,or land attack versions useless against warships. The harpoon antiship missile that today NATO use and sell to allies its range is ~120km .

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/harpoon-block-ii-anti-ship-missile/

and those NSM/JSM info came from me.. thanks .    F-35 missiles. but not everyone have them .  .. JSM not in service yet.

Sorry, but this whole discussion is just laughable, and I do not wish to continue it.
Let's not forget that there's also one thing called line of sight, and using it aircraft can close in on a ship even well within it's SAM range.

In Falklands war A-4 skyhawks were attacking British warships with GRAVITY BOMBS and still managed to get away most of the time.

etaepsilonk wrote:


Sorry, but this whole discussion is just laughable, and I do not wish to continue it.
Let's not forget that there's also one thing called line of sight, and using it aircraft can close in on a ship even well within it's SAM range.

In Falklands war A-4 skyhawks were attacking British warships with GRAVITY BOMBS and still managed to get away most of the time.

You never focus your navy in a single point in space .. You can extend the line of view of those warships by spreading them..
There are Awacs ,helicopters that helps to extend your view ,still you need Sam defenses with long range that the Grigo don't have.
Anyway it seems Russia listened to me..with the Gorshkov .. lol  and did the correct thing ,but will keep that information until is official.  

Vann7 wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:


Sorry, but this whole discussion is just laughable, and I do not wish to continue it.
Let's not forget that there's also one thing called line of sight, and using it aircraft can close in on a ship even well within it's SAM range.

In Falklands war A-4 skyhawks were attacking British warships with GRAVITY BOMBS and still managed to get away most of the time.

You never focus your navy in a single point in space .. You can extend the line of view of those warships by spreading them..
There are Awacs ,helicopters that helps to extend your view ,still you need Sam defenses with long range that the Grigo don't have.

That's what I was trying to say the whole time. Then in open sea. ships NEED support from the air, and moreover, it's impossible to actually hunt down enemy aircraft with SAMs, except ambushing them.

etaepsilonk wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:


Sorry, but this whole discussion is just laughable, and I do not wish to continue it.
Let's not forget that there's also one thing called line of sight, and using it aircraft can close in on a ship even well within it's SAM range.

In Falklands war A-4 skyhawks were attacking British warships with GRAVITY BOMBS and still managed to get away most of the time.

You never focus your navy in a single point in space .. You can extend the line of view of those warships by spreading them..
There are Awacs ,helicopters that helps to extend your view ,still you need Sam defenses with long range that the Grigo don't have.

That's what I was trying to say the whole time. Then in open sea. ships NEED support from the air, and moreover, it's impossible to actually hunt down enemy aircraft with SAMs, except ambushing them.

Finally we are on the same page..   
Agreed. and this comes to my other bigger point that a strong tactical airforce can defeat any strong tactical navy.
but not going there again. You can look my post in the pak-da thread ...

Vann7 wrote:
Finally we are on the same page..
Agreed. and this comes to my other bigger point that a strong tactical airforce can defeat any strong tactical navy.
but not going there again.

This remains to be seen as no modern naval combat has taken place for 30 years. As for airpower, both in Kosovo and Georgia AD succesfully denied airpower to rule the battle.

The Grigorovich is a well balanced Frigate that will be very useful, and i expect more orders will be placed.

@ GarryB

:  Not long ago you claimed they didn't need a Navy and could use the money saved making a hypersonic bomber. "

What i was saying is to focus more in Airforce than Navy. Navy will  be always important.. just like Tanks are ,and Airforce.
Make no mistake , i will like to see a Big Navy with all kind of warships and variety like anyone else. something like new stealth Cruiser
like a Kirov 2.. with state of the art everything and build them in the dozens. with different frigates as escorts .  Problem is Russia
cannot afford it.. and will never catch US NAvy size.. but more important is Aircraft Carrier fleet.    I just was in the opinion that Russia
could do more with less money if they change the focus to a very strong longe range stealth tactical airforce of many stealth modern bombers.. and combat jets and a smaller navy but still a good one.  So yes Navy is important.. just think will be better to focus more their bigger budget on a more fast /mobile force like tactical airforce. That could deploy in any part of the world very fast.

The new MARS AESA array being developed for S-400/S-500 has a range of about 2,500km... would that be good enough?

Can you provide a link with more information about MARs Aesa with 2500km?

What i was saying is to focus more in Airforce than Navy. Navy will be always important.. just like Tanks are ,and Airforce.

Air force is flimsy... you can't hold territory with an air force... you can't control territory with an air force.

I remember a US pilot describing a napalm attack on a hill in Vietnam during that war... he said as he flew up that Charlie owned the hill and as his bombs exploded the hill became his, but as he flew past he said now the hill belongs to Charlie again... and that is the problem of air power.

You need an army or navy to hold the ground or water... the air force is a supporting force ONLY.

In the west it has become the dominant service in many countries and they now look at conflicts in terms of how they can solve them with air power... so conflicts don't get solved properly.

Problem is Russia
cannot afford it.. and will never catch US NAvy size..

Russia doesn't need that sort of white elephant. Like its Army its navy should be smaller and better equipped and mobile.

So yes Navy is important.. just think will be better to focus more their bigger budget on a more fast /mobile force like tactical airforce. That could deploy in any part of the world very fast.

It is far easier to get to distant places in the world using ships than aircraft even if aircraft can get there faster.

Like the example above they might be able to reach all sorts of places but they will not be able to stay long and will have to leave fairly rapidly so their overall effect will be very little. A ship, or group of ships can stay for days or weeks instead of minutes or hours.


Might be something here about MARS AESA:

http://military.tomsk.ru/blog/topic-373.html

GarryB wrote:

Air force is flimsy... you can't hold territory with an air force... you can't control territory with an air force.

You can't hold a territory with navy either..  

For holding a territory you need Army. And a solid airforce with solid airdefenses can keep away any navy very easily.
specially if you have longe range very fast cruise missiles.

You need an army or navy to hold the ground or water... the air force is a supporting force ONLY.

The navy is supporting role too.. if it can't get close to any well defended land.. Look for example the Royal Navy in world war 2..
it was the strongest in the world as was useless to hold any ground in Europe. They British army was actually wiped when they tried to fight the germans on the ground. and had to be rescued by their navy.. For holding ground you need a strong Army + backed by strong Airforce and Air defenses. US invaded with their navy in Germany only because the germans had 70% of their forces in the eastern front and the invasion did not began until the Germans were defeated.

In the west it has become the dominant service in many countries and they now look at conflicts in terms of how they can solve them with air power... so conflicts don't get solved properly.

Buts thats only when you want to invade a nation.. to control it. Russia is not NATO.. they only need a strong Airforce (aside of defending their land).. to Support their allies. and protect their interest. Airforce with long range missiles can overwhelm any navy . and economically is much more cost/performance effective than navy too. 1 single cheap airplane can sink an top of the line aircraft carrier or super cruiser. and deny any navy pass to any zone.

It is far easier to get to distant places in the world using ships than aircraft even if aircraft can get there faster.

Not really.. if the only Kirov that Russia have is on the other side of the planet and needs to go to Venezuela it will a week or more. If is a non nuclear warships more. Arriving one week later or two where help is needed ..is too late.. on top that you can deploy tanks and army withing hours with cargo planes.

Like the example above they might be able to reach all sorts of places but they will not be able to stay long and will have to leave fairly rapidly so their overall effect will be very little. A ship, or group of ships can stay for days or weeks instead of minutes or hours.

That depends if you had already a military base in the place. More cheap to rent one ,than to buy an aircraft carrier.
IF Russia deploy a moderate Airforce in allies military bases ,it could dissuade any nation of any attack and defend world wide their interest..

Might be something here about MARS AESA:
http://military.tomsk.ru/blog/topic-373.html

cool thx

You can't hold a territory with navy either..

How do you think a naval blockade works?

Against many countries naval forces can deny resupply and greatly hinder trade which can have a crippling effect on a country.

In WWI it wasn't the enormous losses of soldiers on the battlefield that finally ended the war... it was the naval blockade of Germany that forced them to the negotiating table.

That was the reason for Hitlers expansion to the east and also his efforts in north africa and the middle east... he needed land access to resources like oil to keep his military machine working. It was Germans U boats that caused great suffering in the UK with their attempted blockade... if Germany had a stronger navy and carriers to support its sub fleet things might have gotten a lot worse. Without the UK for US forces to base their drive to retake Europe things might have turned out rather different.

Of course diverting more energy and money to its navy would have resulted in a less capable army and air force so there really is no way to be sure.

For holding a territory you need Army. And a solid airforce with solid airdefenses can keep away any navy very easily.

If you just want to punish a country or hit point targets like baby milk factories or terrorist training bases then a sub fired land attack cruise missile would suffice... you don't need to mount a complex air craft based raid including bombers and fighter escorts and jammers and tankers and AWACS aircraft etc etc.

Conversely if you want to punish a whole country... the way the US does, then a naval blockade is just as effective and rather cheaper than an army based invasion.

specially if you have longe range very fast cruise missiles.

A submarine is invulnerable to even the fastest cruise missile, yet can use those sorts of weapons to degrade an enemy air force from stand off ranges.

The navy is supporting role too.. if it can't get close to any well defended land.. Look for example the Royal Navy in world war 2..

The Royal Navy of WWII didn't have 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles able to hit targets with conventional explosives with an accuracy of less than 10m.

it was the strongest in the world as was useless to hold any ground in Europe. They British army was actually wiped when they tried to fight the germans on the ground. and had to be rescued by their navy..

See above.

Without strong navies the UK would not have lasted to 1941, without a strong navy the US could not have gone to Europe to fight, and it also would not have been very effective in the Pacific either.

Buts thats only when you want to invade a nation.. to control it. Russia is not NATO.. they only need a strong Airforce (aside of defending their land).. to Support their allies. and protect their interest.

How is the Russian Army or Air Force going to help Venezuela?

Or Cuba?

Or Vietnam?

To be a global power Russia needs a strong navy... not a big navy, but a strong one.

Not all the navy ships however need to be Kirovs... there are plenty of jobs for the Russian Navy that don't require death star fire power.

Airforce with long range missiles can overwhelm any navy . and economically is much more cost/performance effective than navy too. 1 single cheap airplane can sink an top of the line aircraft carrier or super cruiser. and deny any navy pass to any zone.

True, but how will the Russian air force deploy its planes with these long range missiles to places like Venezuela or Vietnam or India for that matter. Sending a sub is much quicker and much more effective because the vast majority of countries in the world would have no chance of detecting and tracking a modern Russian sub. Even the UK has withdrawn its Nimrods and would have serious problems detecting a Russian sub in its waters or else where.

Not really.. if the only Kirov that Russia have is on the other side of the planet and needs to go to Venezuela it will a week or more. If is a non nuclear warships more. Arriving one week later or two where help is needed ..is too late.. on top that you can deploy tanks and army withing hours with cargo planes.

A Kirov is a show vessel, they have enough subs to get pretty much anywhere in short order armed with plenty of effective weapons. In fact they don't even need to send anything... they could just say there is a Yasen in the area and let the enemy search for it in vain.

BTW exactly which cargo planes will they use to deliver forces to Venezuela? At that range the payload will be small and will arrive slowly in very small bites for a very slow force build up.

You claim to know about tactics... why was it that in Desert Storm the US delayed their response to Saddams invasion of Kuwaite by 6 months so it could get all its heavy armour to the middle east. It had Sheridans.... hahahahaha!!! and it had a rather larger air lift capability and refuelling tanker fleet than Russia ever had or will ever have.

The fact is that delivery of ground forces still relies on naval delivery except for very small light forces.

That depends if you had already a military base in the place. More cheap to rent one ,than to buy an aircraft carrier.

When you buy a carrier you get to keep it... even when governments are voted out or over thrown. More importantly if you have a navy you need a carrier to support it... saving money by not buying a carrier is like buying a house in the hills of california and saving money not getting fire insurance... :rolleyes:

[qutoe]IF Russia deploy a moderate Airforce in allies military bases ,it could dissuade any nation of any attack and defend world wide their interest..[/quote]

So you want Russia to become the US?

Unelected world policeman? Brute squad?

GarryB wrote:

How do you think a naval blockade works?
Against many countries naval forces can deny resupply and greatly hinder trade which can have a crippling effect on a country.
In WWI it wasn't the enormous losses of soldiers on the battlefield that finally ended the war... it was the naval blockade of Germany that forced them to the negotiating table.

But naval blockades (to reduce its effectiveness in war) only works against small nations that are not self sufficient...
ie..you cannot naval blockade Russia for example.. or South America or USA and reduce its military capabilities. Britain in the other hand could be naval blockaded.. but we are here speaking about Russia. That have the size of AFrica + USA combined and is self sufficient in food today ,and can be supplied with everything they need from former soviet republics or China which share a border.. Simply you cannot naval blockade Russia.  You can cripple its economy from technology import and exports from US and allies but the same can be done with sanctions. more cheap and more effective than sending a navy. And neither you can naval blockade many allied nations of Russia. aside of CUba.(for obvious geographical limitations ) Venezuela could get anything they need from many other south american leftist countries in case of war. and as i told you airforce can defeat navy if it is well armed with the correct weapons.

That was the reason for Hitlers expansion to the east and also his efforts in north africa and the middle east... he needed land access to resources like oil to keep his military machine working.  

Not worry, Russia is an energy super power and have plenty of Oil and gas and today is agriculturally sufficient..and a get chocolates from Ukraine or wines from Georgia or less not forget that Russia shares a border with China so can supply machinery or rare metals if they need.  And trying to isolate Russia is like trying to isolate Asia..in practice the ones that ends isolated are the west that depends highly of the easter major economies trade.  

It was Germans U boats that caused great suffering in the UK with their attempted blockade... if Germany had a stronger navy and carriers to support its sub fleet things might have gotten a lot worse. Without the UK for US forces to base their drive to retake Europe things might have turned out rather different.Of course diverting more energy and money to its navy would have resulted in a less capable army and air force so there really is no way to be sure.

All that is correct..but is irrelevant. since Russia is self sufficient today and very huge country. and can't be blockaded with a navy any more than what US sanctions can do. Simply folk give up ,you can't blockade Russia.. change this argument. And BTW..U-boats and german warships biggest casualties came from allies air-force , once radars where invented it was near impossible to hide. Today submarines are much better still can be sinked with helicopters and airforce .Once a submarine launch a cruise missile its location will be detected and the Submarine spotted and destroyed . It will be horrible to be on submarine knowing an airfoce is flying above you ,searching for any sub.

If you just want to punish a country or hit point targets like baby milk factories or terrorist training bases then a sub fired land attack cruise missile would suffice... you don't need to mount a complex air craft based raid including bombers and fighter escorts and jammers and tankers and AWACS aircraft etc etc.  Conversely if you want to punish a whole country... the way the US does, then a naval blockade is just as effective and rather cheaper than an army based invasion.

Terrorist and training bases of them suggest a third world nation.. Russia will do fine with their long range airforce. and i told you having military airports in allies nations could also do the job. you can use mig-31 and fly above their radars defenses,and you dont even need to penetrate their air defenses.. Long range missiles can do the job. ***Remember*** that every cruise missile that a warship carry can also be launched from an airplane. For third world nations any Su-27 can do strikes as well as a navy to a terrorist training camp. and using exactly the same missiles. SO even if the medium of launching the weapons is different ,the end result is exactly the same. with the difference that airforce is more cost effective.  And can be anywhere in the world in no time,specially when you have extra military bases .

A submarine is invulnerable to even the fastest cruise missile, yet can use those sorts of weapons to degrade an enemy air force from stand off ranges.

But submarines are vulnerable to cheap mines that could be deployed overnight by a seal team. and Subs visible from satellites in space even if they submerged 100 ft(or meters according to a Russian sailor interview) . They cannot hide well in shallow waters as it is the mediterranean sea. and can also be spotted by hellicopters with ASW designed to detect them or AWACs. Submarines are even vulnerable to cheap underwater drones . even a fishing boat with hidden torpedos can be used to defeat a submarine once is returning to an allied naval port for resupply .

Without strong navies the UK would not have lasted to 1941, without a strong navy the US could not have gone to Europe to fight, and it also would not have been very effective in the Pacific either.

Indeed but if a mini NATO existed at that time ,there will have been no need to cross the ocean to mobilize troops.. Today most US troops are overseas near the zones of potential conflict.  If a war start in Korea for example, US already have the army there with an airfoce in south korea and F-22 in Japan i think. no navy need to defend south korea.  in the Egypt war for example with Israel.. they were under a naval blockade and Russia created an Air bridge ,and supplied Egypt with everything they need to push the Israelis back when they were trying to take control of the Suez canal.. Don't underestimate airforce ,you can break any naval blockade with that.

How is the Russian Army or Air Force going to help Venezuela?
Or Cuba?
Or Vietnam?

Cuba is too close to USA ,in a bad location and if they really want to capture it ,there is nothing Russia can do to stop them unless they use nukes. However Having already military base there helps justifying them to come in their defense in case a major conflict start. that will show the attacker that the consequences will be very high even if its a conventional war.

Venezuela in the other hand US cannot take it if Russia had a military base there.. and the amazons that connect near all south american could easily be used to supply Venezuela with everything they need. it will be much worse than vietnam ,more like a korea 2 war ,don't think US or NATO will ever adventure to repeat something like that again.    

NATO powerful navies could not help to hold any ground in korean war . That war China kicked NATO from North korea without having any navy at all. just with a little help of russian airforce support.. according to American korean veteran historian who participated in that war. 

http://bevinalexander.com/books/korea-first-war-we-lost.htm

But contrary to his western researched info also Russian airforce did a difference in that war..

By October 1950, the Soviet Union had agreed to provide air regiments equipped with high performance MiG-15 fighters, along with the trained crews to fly them. Simultaneously, the Kremlin agreed to supply the Chinese and North Koreans with their own MiG-15s, as well as training for their pilots.[citation needed]

The first encounters happened on November 1, 1950, when eight MiG-15s intercepted about 15 United States Air Force (USAF) P-51 Mustangs. Soviet pilot First Lieutenant Fiodor Chizh shot down and killed American pilot Aaron Abercrombie.[1] Later that day, Soviet pilot First Lieutenant Semyon Jominich (also spelled Khominich[2]) became the first pilot in history to be credited with a jet-versus-jet kill. This occurred when three MiG-15s attacked about 10 American F-80C fighters, with Jominich claiming the F-80C of American pilot Frank Van Sickle (listed in American records as killed by flak). On November 9, 1950, the Soviets suffered their first loss when Lieutenant Commander William T. Amen shot down and killed Captain Mijael Grachev.[1]

In response to North Korea's deployment of jets, P-51 squadrons from the UN air forces converted to jet fighters: the F-86 in the case of USAF and South African Air Force (SAAF) and the Gloster Meteor by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

April 12, 1951 was nicknamed "Black Thursday" by USAF pilots after three MiG-15 squadrons (30 planes) attacked three squadrons of B-29 Superfortress bombers (36 planes) protected by about a hundred F-80 Shooting Star and F-84 Thunderjet fighters. With no casualties on the Soviet side, 12 B-29 bombers were destroyed.[3] (three B-29s were shot down and seven were damaged according to US sources.) [4] The US sorties were halted for approximately three months afterwards, forcing US forces to change tactics like flying during night-time in small groups.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_Alley


Simply Navy can't win wars ,against strong nations with strong defenses. Today air defenses in land can push any navy far away of its combat range. Even Aegis can be overwhelmed contrary to what any western patriot believe . is correct that airforce alone can't win wars.. but without control of your airspace is very hard to win and very costly.

True, but how will the Russian air force deploy its planes with these long range missiles to places like Venezuela or Vietnam or India for that matter

By flying there weeks before the war start ? military airports? what is the obstacle for RUssia having military bases in those places.. ? If the government is overthrow for a hostile one,they will not need to defend them . this is not an advantage for the navy either it will be the same.  Most of their allies will be happy to have a Russian airforce in their territory and for free with russian not paying anything. To help in their Nation defense. just ask Syria ,Iran or Armenia what will they say.

Sending a sub is much quicker and much more effective because the vast majority of countries in the world would have no chance of detecting and tracking a modern Russian sub.

Submarines unless you have a huge fleet you cannot have them in every part of the world ,after 30 or 45 days needs food resupply ,and resurface .Submarines needs to surface at some point ,they can be detected as i told you by satellites in shallow waters and very vulnerable to attacks in third world nations in allied ports ,to mines and seal commandos. Vulnerable to underwater drones , detecting enemy underwater is more harder than over it. Is more easier and less expensive to defend an airforce in a military base than to maintain a navy and defend it and travel to any nation who needs assistance..

Even the UK has withdrawn its Nimrods and would have serious problems detecting a Russian sub in its waters or else where.

 

UK is vulnerable for being a small Island ,they can be blockaded.

A Kirov is a show vessel, they have enough subs to get pretty much anywhere in short order armed with plenty of effective weapons. In fact they don't even need to send anything... they could just say there is a Yasen in the area and let the enemy search for it in vain.

Airfoce could carry exactly the same weapons ,same Kalibr missiles or torpedos that a Yasen sub.
What is more deadly?
32 Kalibers launched for a Yasen or 32 Kalibrs launched from 4-6 tactical planes?   The planes not even need to be stealth ,or to hide at all ,if they fly under the umbrella of that nation strong Air defenses. With Good Sams you can conver not only your Airspace but far away and shield any allies fighting an ememy navy. ..
 
And as a bonus if on any attack you lose a plane you will have more planes to retaliate.. using Kalibr missiles..
but if a Submarine Yasen ambushed you lost your entire defense with many people killed and many billions lost. The outrage of Losing a Submarine will be so big that people will demand to quit defending any Nation.  If a Combat plane is intercepted with a missile ,the pilot even have a chance to eject and survive.     Thats another aspect of wars that you can't ignore the public reaction aside and world image. Losing a Tu-22M with upgraded modern cruise missiles is more acceptable that losing an Aircraft carrier or a Yasen submarine with hundreds of sailors and officers.

So you want Russia to become the US?
Unelected world policeman? Brute squad?

Is not about being  a world police.. is about defending allies being attacked and defending their interest. Self defense and world police are 2 different things.  Russia have the right to defend allies. Defending allies will not change the balance of power. Because in the end things will remain the way they were before the conflict began. So its not about gaining territory ,but helping nations that request help in holding their legitimate land.

IF sadam had S-300s with a decent Airforce with supersonic anti-ship missiles and a decent army it will have been not possible for NATO to defeat them ,in a way that could be tolerated by US and EU citizens. Specially because was seen as a not legal war. At the first aircraft carrier sinked the war will have ended. The outrage of people and military will have been so big ,that will have removed Bush from power .    

anyway.. as i told you . Im not suggesting Navy is not important,or that Russia should ignored it ,far from that. Only believe that giving preference to invest more in very powerful tactical airforce + deploying military bases in allies nations that request it ,can allow Russia to produce similar results , without the need of many Billions spending that requires maintaining Submarines ,aircraft carriers and warships and its sailors.

But naval blockades (to reduce its effectiveness in war) only works against small nations that are not self sufficient...

What country... big or small is self sufficient?

Only land locked countries are uneffected by naval blockades, and they can be "sanctioned" too.

ie..you cannot naval blockade Russia for example.. or South America or USA and reduce its military capabilities. Britain in the other hand could be naval blockaded.. but we are here speaking about Russia.

We are talking about Russia being the victim of a naval blockade AND the potential user of a naval blockade on another country... both of which require a navy.

Simply you cannot naval blockade Russia.

You can seriously damage Russias economy by sanctions and trade restrictions at her ports... a strong navy ensures that is not possible, but a weak one does not.

You can cripple its economy from technology import and exports from US and allies but the same can be done with sanctions. more cheap and more effective than sending a navy.

You need a navy to enforce such sanctions... how do you police the trade... how do you check no one is cheating?

and as i told you airforce can defeat navy if it is well armed with the correct weapons.

So you said... which doesn't make it true.

If I were to say that all of the combined strength of NATO attacking one tiny country for a month would leave that countries military force in tatters... well ask Serbia and Kosovo about that... IADS structure largely still intact after over a month and something like 13 MBTs destroyed!

So much for air power.

Simply folk give up ,you can't blockade Russia.. change this argument.

I never even considered blockading Russia I was actually thinking of the uses of a navy.

It will be horrible to be on submarine knowing an airfoce is flying above you ,searching for any sub.

Except when there are friendly aircraft protecting you... making life difficult for helicopters and MPA.

German U boats suffered heavy casualties because they generally had no air cover of their own.

Terrorist and training bases of them suggest a third world nation.. Russia will do fine with their long range airforce.

No they would not.

From the time an enemy is detected via satellite or human intel till the time an aircraft can be fuelled up and flown potentially 10,000km to the target area is too long.

Having a sub or ship off the coast and launching a missile almost immediately... and being able to launch follow up attacks also immediately after the missiles hit is far more useful to russia.

you can use mig-31 and fly above their radars defenses,and you dont even need to penetrate their air defenses..

What would a Mig-31 do in such a situation?

Long range missiles can do the job. ***Remember*** that every cruise missile that a warship carry can also be launched from an airplane.

A ship or sub can operate off a countries coast for weeks... an aircraft can be there for minutes only before it has to return home.

Long range missiles can do the job. ***Remember*** that every cruise missile that a warship carry can also be launched from an airplane.

The cost of those military bases is enormous... and you are assuming you have permission... You might get a base in Africa but not get permission to attack the neighbour of that country for fear of retaliation by that country on the country you just launched the attack from.

It is a hornets nest.

But submarines are vulnerable to cheap mines that could be deployed overnight by a seal team.

Why do you need a Seal team to lay mines?

A simple roll on roll off ferry would be far superior for laying mines no human is strong enough to carry...

and Subs visible from satellites in space even if they submerged 100 ft(or meters according to a Russian sailor interview) .

Hahaha... how many countries have real time access to satellite imagery?

[qutoe]Submarines are even vulnerable to cheap underwater drones . even a fishing boat with hidden torpedos can be used to defeat a submarine once is returning to an allied naval port for resupply . [/quote]

Makes you wonder why NATO bothers with Submarines... any dick head with a stick of dynamite and a box of matches can defeat any multi million dollar sub it seems.

Don't underestimate airforce ,you can break any naval blockade with that.

Not for long.

And only if the other side does not decide to shoot down some of those big vulnerable and expensive and hard to replace transport planes.

Cuba is too close to USA ,in a bad location and if they really want to capture it ,there is nothing Russia can do to stop them unless they use nukes.

I am talking about realistic uses of a Russian naval force... not drug taking 101.

If the US imposed stricter sanctions that included a naval blockade what could Russia do with its air force?

It would make much more sense to deal with such a situation with naval vessels.

Equally with Venezuela and Vietnam it would be naval forces that could be sent to show support and solidarity.

32 Kalibers launched for a Yasen or 32 Kalibrs launched from 4-6 tactical planes?

Which 4-6 tactical planes can carry 32 Kalibrs? Which ones can carry that number of missiles globally... you are basically talking about the Tu-160, which means 3 planes... almost 1/3 of your strategic jet bomber force... it does not include escort and support aircraft.

Losing a Tu-22M with upgraded modern cruise missiles is more acceptable that losing an Aircraft carrier or a Yasen submarine with hundreds of sailors and officers.

Most third world countries can detect aircraft... most first world countries have problems tracking submarines.

Only believe that giving preference to invest more in very powerful tactical airforce + deploying military bases in allies nations that request it ,can allow Russia to produce similar results , without the need of many Billions spending that requires maintaining Submarines ,aircraft carriers and warships and its sailors.

So instead of spending billions on a useful navy you want to squander billions on foreign bases... presumably that are air supplied... which is incredibly inefficient and expensive... and also very volatile because one election can turn that country to the west... as we have been seeing. If Assad falls what would happen to the Russian naval base in Tartus?

What do you think would have happened with a Russian Air base used to defend Russian interests in the region using attack aircraft?

Do you think a world wide network of Russian foreign bases would make the US and the west more or less likely to interfere in the politics of those countries to try to get the Russian forces out?

To be blunt you are being stupid.

Air power is useful but hollow... it is a support arm only.

The UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan, the US didn't become powerful and then build a big navy... they became powerful by building a powerful navy first which made them global powers, or in the case of Japan a dominant regional power.

GarryB wrote:

What country... big or small is self sufficient?

SO many to name. Countries that could sustain a "blockade" in war and not diminish their combat capability ,Russia is self sufficient top 3 world producer of  grain ,Gold ,diamonds,Uranium,Titanium ,many other rare materials ,they also have fish ,Water etc..and produce almost everything they need for a war. major power in energy ,Gas Oil ,Steel Iron metals . Aside that they are connected/bordering with Many very agricultural nations too ,and All south americans Nations are self sufficient you can't blockade them either.. Navy blockades only works against small Nations ,specially if not bordering allies. but can't blockade Big ones in most cases.. or small ones like Ecuador is small one you can't blockade them because bordering allies. So not possible unless you blockade all south america. Simply give up your  silly blockade argument.   

If I were to say that all of the combined strength of NATO attacking one tiny country for a month would leave that countries military force in tatters... well ask Serbia and Kosovo about that... IADS structure largely still intact after over a month and something like 13 MBTs destroyed! So much for air power.

So you think it will have been any different if Serbia had a powerful NAVY,,,?     OMG  epic fail analogy. like everything else you say.
If NATO unite with all their navies ,against a small nation like Serbia its navy will have been destroyed in Minutes. And not even using any warship. just airforce from Italy or any neighboring country,to not expose their navies and there you go all your precious navy billions wasted. they will not have a chance Unless they have nukes and very capable strong Airforce with strong air defences and Oniks/Yakhonts missiles fired from land if needed.. The advantage of firing missiles from Land over navy is that Land doesn't sink and navy can sink. You could destroy a Sam site in land , and it could be replaced with missiles the next day. You can't say the same about navy. And NATO will never go in an offensive war if they not attacked ,that the cost of winning will not be worth of the consequences.  And Remember NATO failed in Korean War with all their super ultra mega powerful navies..kicked from North korea  against a nation with ZERO navy.

You can seriously damage Russias economy by sanctions and trade restrictions at her ports... a strong navy ensures that is not possible, but a weak one does not.You need a navy to enforce such sanctions... how do you police the trade... how do you check no one is cheating?

Simply only an ignorant can believe you can blockade Russia with a navy.
Aside that US does not need a navy to enforce sanctions because they have other ways to enforce sanctions ,like Petro Dollars..
Freezing Bank Accounts of nations who refuse to obey.,black mailing Nations to not do business with you. It helps a lot when you are the World major economy and your banks hold most of EU and many other nations gold reserves.

From the time an enemy is detected via satellite or human intel till the time an aircraft can be fuelled up and flown potentially 10,000km to the target area is too long. Having a sub or ship off the coast and launching a missile almost immediately... and being able to launch follow up attacks also immediately after the missiles hit is far more useful to russia.

You continue to IGNORE ,(for the sake bring an argument) what i told you of having military bases away of their land in zones of potential conflict. So there is no 10,000 to fly.. The base will be right there exactly at the same distance of the Submarine if not closer..  But also remember you can't bomb countries just because there are terrorist there. You can only attack terrorist if you are request help with that nation. And direct hits with airforce are more accurate.    

A ship or sub can operate off a countries coast for weeks... an aircraft can be there for minutes only before it has to return home.

A military airport in that same place can operate for as much time.. irrelevant.

The cost of those military bases is enormous... and you are assuming you have permission... You might get a base in Africa but not get permission to attack the neighbour of that country for fear of retaliation by that country on the country you just launched the attack from.
It is a hornets nest.

Incorrect.  US and NATO have bases all over the middle east and pay NOT A SINGLE PENNY FOR IT ,not a single cent..
There are specials cases where the military base is even build by the hosting nation.. ie Saudis and Qataris and others build military bases in their NAtion for NATO free of any cost.  so they need to pay nothing. But also bases in South America they had paying nothing for the base. Any nation under threat of a major war with a foreign power will have no problem to giving away any of their Airports for Russia to help in their defense. But even if they have to pay for a rent, a military airforce base is not any more costly than the cost of operating a SUbmarine or aircraft carrier. Not a chance.    

Hahaha... how many countries have real time access to satellite imagery?

every half an hour check will be fine to know when a submarine is on any port.. Spies even more cheap or Rocks with spy cameras as we have seen NATO or allies likes to use. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-says-it-found-israel-spying-rocks-2013-3  

no navy need to spy any naval port .    
UK also have a Spy tower in Cyprus just 100km of Syrian coast that monitors all the Syrian coast communication and warships locations.

Makes you wonder why NATO bothers with Submarines... any dick head with a stick of dynamite and a box of matches can defeat any multi million dollar sub it seems.  

Because they can afford them.. and NATO is an Offensive Army. They need big navies for invading Nations.And RUssia armed forced are defensive one ,they don't have a need for a big navy because they dont invade they only protect .   

I am talking about realistic uses of a Russian naval force... not drug taking 101.
If the US imposed stricter sanctions that included a naval blockade what could Russia do with its air force?

So you really think  Russian airforce cannot sink a NATO NAVY is they need it?    
why i bother discussing with you.     

It would make much more sense to deal with such a situation with naval vessels.
Equally with Venezuela and Vietnam it would be naval forces that could be sent to show support and solidarity.

Only more sense if you lack of any tactics understanding.  Navies alone cannot win wars.. You need airforce and ARmy.
A NATO invasion never start until they have Air superiority. Give a NATION strong Air defenses , strong tactical airforce with strong
ARmy and No NATO invasion. For nothing no one in NATO wants to form in line to Attack IRAN and their navy is very weak..  

Which 4-6 tactical planes can carry 32 Kalibrs? Which ones can carry that number of missiles globally... you are basically talking about the Tu-160, which means 3 planes... almost 1/3 of your strategic jet bomber force... it does not include escort and support aircraft.

Kalibrs ,and any antiship missile can be launched from Land .  Russia with any SUkhois or Migs jets can launch waves of anti ship missiles overwhelming any aegis flying under their radars. Airforce can defeat Navy.. If you don't believe it ,then is because you have no a lot of understanding of combat tactics.

Most third world countries can detect aircraft... most first world countries have problems tracking submarines.

Any third world country can deploy patrol  boats with torpedos or anti submarine missiles.  in the worse of the cases.. as soon a submarine launch the first cruise missile it will be spotted its last location on the radars.  and Chased and destroyed by any airforce prepared for that Job. And there goes your 2 US$ billions investment. with a cheap torpedo.   

So instead of spending billions on a useful navy you want to squander billions on foreign bases... presumably that are air supplied...
which is incredibly inefficient and expensive...

Totally disagree . Only inefficient if you have no knowledge of tactics..

If Assad falls what would happen to the Russian naval base in Tartus?

And in what way having a big navy at the coast of Syria can win the war for assad? The combats are in land..   
Russia in the same way can push NATO navies away with strong long range Air defenses ,land deployed kalibr missiles. or fired from Air.
Su-34s can launch yakhonts those will be fine. Syria Airforce have their old migs configured to launch Yakhonts from cheap planes.. The only limit how to fight in a war are your brains..as a Bonus ,land deployed Airforce can help in the land war for Direct Hits  ,something NAvy cannot efficiently do with the precision and timing required against mobile armies,simply you need Air superiority to help winning wars. Navy cannot get close any coast without air superiority first ,specially on shallow waters .
Strong Airforce already deployed in land with solid defense can significantly help in winning wars and do not have such limitations  

Do you think a world wide network of Russian foreign bases would make the US and the west more or less likely to interfere in the politics of those countries to try to get the Russian forces out?

The same question to you..
Do you think a world wide network of NaVies bases would make the US and the west more or less likely to interfere in the politics of those countries to try to get the Russian forces out?

The answer is No.. having an army ,navy ,airforce or any military does not guarantee that there will be any Interference at all.
So your argument again is Irrelevant. a strong NAvy does not help in any way to keep US away of interfering on any other nation politics.
Russia actually have a lots of problems with US interference in their politics.  

To be blunt you are being stupid.

You simply understand nothing of tactics ,Geo-politics ,economics ,the difference of geography can make in a war, and like to argue with everyone even if you know your clearly wrong. The Believe that Russia can be blockaded/isolated with a navy and that their Airforce can't defeat any NATO Navy..  Should be more than enough for anyone to give up in any conversation about tactics with you.     

The UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan, the US didn't become powerful and then build a big navy... they became powerful by building a powerful navy first which made them global powers, or in the case of Japan a dominant regional power.

yes but that was in the past.. today in modern times things are different.. there was no planes back in those times with long range cruise missiles and radars that could rule the skies and defeat navy. German NAvy defeated by Airforce.. Japan navy defeated by Airforce.
Airforce is the major enemy of NAVY for its Fast mobility and ability to fly under the radar. Even weak airforces can pose a danger for powerful navies.. look at Pearl harvor.    ,History is filled with tons and tons of examples of Airforce defeating navy ,only people who dig their heads on the sand and refuse to look at the historical facts and give excuses for a warship being destroyed by cheap tactics will think otherwise.  Even hezbolah a paramilitary group with no navy intercepted an Israeli Corvette INS Hanit  that was blockading Lebanon port with 1 very cheap Chinesse anti-ship missile in the 2006 war.  

https://youtu.be/zkLshdwXJto

So much for your blockades ,will love to see Nato try blockading the Black sea to Russia with their navies will not last an hour there..  


THis is using primitive weapons ,and tactics.  Egypt also with 2 cheap patrol boats sinked  Israeli destroyer Eila Destroyer of Israel in another war. 40 people killed. here the video..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKaeu2DyfJg


anyway im done with arguing with you.. there is no hope to to discuss anything with you about tactics .  

So not possible unless you blockade all south america. Simply give up your silly blockade argument.

Controlling areas of the sea, being able to board and seize ships if they are found to be carrying illegal or dangerous goods is a capability Russia needs. Being able to do that globally is USEFUL.

They don't actually have to blockade a country to put pressure on them.

The vast majority of heavy goods move around the world by sea... having a global navy means able to interfere with that movement of goods to your own benefit and being able to deny a rival the opportunity to do the same.

OMG epic fail analogy. like everything else you say.

It is sad that you lower the tone of this discussion to this level... next you will be saying something about my mother I suppose.

If NATO unite with all their navies ,against a small nation like Serbia its navy will have been destroyed in Minutes. And not even using any warship. just airforce from Italy or any neighboring country,to not expose their navies and there you go all your precious navy billions wasted.

So the lesson learned is that the Serbian Navy could not survive an open conflict with NATO so Russia should not spend money on her Navy.

Genius.

In that case why spend money on any part of their military except the strategic rocket forces?

What do they need other than ICBMs?

I mean all those trillions of Roubles could pay for free education and free health for all Russians, and be invested into the economy... heck Putin could pay poor people to not be poor anymore...

And Remember NATO failed in Korean War with all their super ultra mega powerful navies..kicked from North korea against a nation with ZERO navy.

Hahahaha... yeah... North Korea "won" the land war... perhaps if she had a powerful navy she might be in rather better condition now... billions saved... clearly well spent.

North Korea is a case of isolation and economic and political sanctions crushing an economy.

You continue to IGNORE ,(for the sake bring an argument) what i told you of having military bases away of their land in zones of potential conflict.

How many military bases will Russia get in North America?

the problem with bases in areas of potential conflict is... first of all they need to be manned, which puts Russian military personel and equipment in lots of dangerous situations... a country wanting a Russian base wont want Russia to be neutral... they will want help in their little wars... even when it does not suit Russia.

Even if it can get the bases for free they will cost money to operate and maintain and you need to actually have forces there and you need to be able to get there on a regular bases to rotate staff and equipment... far cheaper to do by sea than by air.

Incorrect. US and NATO have bases all over the middle east and pay NOT A SINGLE PENNY FOR IT ,not a single cent..

Hahahaha... US presence in Egypt cost the US 1.5 billion a year in military aide and they still didn't really have actual aircraft basing rights there. Israel costs even more and AFAIK they have no forces based their either.

The cost of basing soldiers in Saudi Arabia is their soul.

But even if they have to pay for a rent, a military airforce base is not any more costly than the cost of operating a SUbmarine or aircraft carrier. Not a chance.

A submarine or carrier actually belongs to Russia however.

every half an hour check will be fine to know when a submarine is on any port.. Spies even more cheap or Rocks with spy cameras as we have seen NATO or allies likes to use. Wink

http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-says-it-found-israel-spying-rocks-2013-3

no navy need to spy any naval port . Wink
UK also have a Spy tower in Cyprus just 100km of Syrian coast that monitors all the Syrian coast communication and warships locations.

Even if a camera in a rock could detect a Yasen class SSGN how on earth would that help in any way to stop that sub from launching a cruise missile attack?

And RUssia armed forced are defensive one ,they don't have a need for a big navy because they dont invade they only protect .

Russia has interests around the world... its army and its air force cannot protect those. Only her navy can... whether you want to admit it or not.

Only more sense if you lack of any tactics understanding. Navies alone cannot win wars.. You need airforce and ARmy.
A NATO invasion never start until they have Air superiority. Give a NATION strong Air defenses , strong tactical airforce with strong
ARmy and No NATO invasion. For nothing no one in NATO wants to form in line to Attack IRAN and their navy is very weak..

Irrelevant to Russia... Russia has nuclear weapons to secure its safety... I am talking about peace time maritime patrol and global influence   

Airforce can defeat Navy.. If you don't believe it ,then is because you have no a lot of understanding of combat tactics.

Air forces can defeat navies... how did Britain take back the Falklands then?

How would Britain have taken the Falklands back without her navy?

Their Air Force got landing rights in South America to allow attacks by aircraft... they were long and expensive and although they did the job they were supposed to they could never have taken the Falklands back with air power alone.

Any third world country can deploy patrol boats with torpedos or anti submarine missiles.

What anti submarine missiles do third world countries have?

How effective would a third world patrol craft be against an Akula?

as soon a submarine launch the first cruise missile it will be spotted its last location on the radars. and Chased and destroyed by any airforce prepared for that Job. And there goes your 2 US$ billions investment. with a cheap torpedo.

How far underwater did that cruise missile run before it broke the surface to fly to its target?

What speed will those patrol boats have to get to the area where the cruise missile launch was detected and how long will it take for them to get there?

In that time has the SSGN stayed still or has it moved to another launch location?

What is going to stop that Akula sinking all the patrol boats?

Only inefficient if you have no knowledge of tactics..

Only amateurs think of tactics... it is logistics that win wars... and having lots of foreign bases means logistics... not tactics.

And in what way having a big navy at the coast of Syria can win the war for assad? The combats are in land..

It wouldn't... just like having big air force bases all round the world but with no navy to support them... foreign bases are subject to attack and political manipulation.

Su-34s can launch yakhonts those will be fine.

How many Su-34s do you think they will have and how many foreign bases will they be deployed to?

Navy cannot get close any coast without air superiority first ,specially on shallow waters .

The first step for invasion is long range cruise missile attack to degrade the air defence network and air force of the enemy and the command and control network.

It is far easier to have a cruiser sitting off the coast firing 80 long range land attack cruise missiles than it is to have 20 Tu-22M3Ms fly there and launch the attack with the same number of weapons.

Strong Airforce already deployed in land with solid defense can significantly help in winning wars and do not have such limitations

So Russia is going to have enough planes to have a strong airforce in 50 different countries around the world instead of a navy... hahaha... good luck with that.

The answer is No.. having an army ,navy ,airforce or any military does not guarantee that there will be any Interference at all.
So your argument again is Irrelevant. a strong NAvy does not help in any way to keep US away of interfering on any other nation politics.
Russia actually have a lots of problems with US interference in their politics.

The reason I ask is because it was the revolution in Iran that kicked out the CIA and led to them focusing instead on Afghanistan for an outpost to spy on the Soviet Union.

The main reason the Soviets went in to Afghanistan was to ensure the CIA didn't turn it into a puppet state for the US.

Now if they didn't have assets in the region and of course access via Pakistan do you think they would have bothered infiltrating Afghanistan?

Should be more than enough for anyone to give up in any conversation about tactics with you.

A strong air force and a strong army are no better... in Kosovo no level of army or air force would allow the Russians to act... a much stronger navy might have been able to at least go there and interfere with the western campaign.

Americas and NATOs naval and air and land power came to naught in South Ossetia.

Each situation is unique as a certain old cow once said, but in peace time a powerful navy can secure Russian interests rather better than no navy.

yes but that was in the past.. today in modern times things are different.. there was no planes back in those times with long range cruise missiles and radars that could rule the skies and defeat navy. German NAvy defeated by Airforce.. Japan navy defeated by Airforce.

Long range cruise missiles can destroy enemy aircraft before they even take off. Aircraft carriers can carry those same planes to defend ships which makes them even more capable.

Even weak airforces can pose a danger for powerful navies.. look at Pearl harvor.

The Japanese carrier fleet and aircraft were the most powerful of the period.

History is filled with tons and tons of examples of Airforce defeating navy ,only people who dig their heads on the sand and refuse to look at the historical facts and give excuses for a warship being destroyed by cheap tactics will think otherwise.

...

yes but that was in the past.. today in modern times things are different..

Who isn't making any sense?

So much for your blockades ,will love to see Nato try blockading the Black sea to Russia with their navies will not last an hour there..

If they wanted to NATO member Turkey could close the entrance to the Black Sea... then what could be done?

anyway im done with arguing with you.. there is no hope to to discuss anything with you about tactics .

I don't think the word tactics means what you think it means.

The logistics of having to support air bases around the world and producing enough aircraft to equip all those bases would be crippling just so you can have an airbase within tactical fighter range in the event something happens.

Without conflict such a force would be an incredible burden to the Russian economy.

A navy on the other hand has a range of practical uses for peace time as well as for war and is money much better spent.

KiloGolf wrote:
AB is far from old. It's a brilliant class.

It is a brilliant milking cow for the manufacturer.


Wartime capability never proved.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:
AB is far from old. It's a brilliant class.

It is a brilliant milking cow for the manufacturer.


Wartime capability never proved.

Surely Slava, Kirovs and Kuz are wartime proven?

AB is atm worlds most numerous capital ship with very good service record, what else you can ask from it.

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Yeah... old shit warmed over for the next 50 years... probably just as well as that will likely be all they can afford...

Well AB had as of now 3 major modernisation packages, differences between Flight 1 and Flight 3 are massive. You cant expect even US to build completely new destroyer class every 10 years.

Its almost 2 billion a ship, not like its cheap...

It is a 10,000 ton monster though. Probably qualifies better as a cruiser.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Yeah... old shit warmed over for the next 50 years... probably just as well as that will likely be all they can afford...

Well AB had as of now 3 major modernisation packages, differences between Flight 1 and Flight 3 are massive. You cant expect even US to build completely new destroyer class every 10 years.

Its almost 2 billion a ship, not like its cheap...

It is a 10,000 ton monster though. Probably qualifies better as a cruiser.

more like a "Yuuuge" waste of space. But then again, design is old so it is forgivable.

As for Kuznetsov, directed at Alpha: you are aware that it would probably be cheaper for Russia to build a new one than to possibly refit the Kuznetsov? That ship would require a ridiculous amount of work in order to make it nuclear.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:
AB is far from old. It's a brilliant class.

It is a brilliant milking cow for the manufacturer.


Wartime capability never proved.

Surely Slava, Kirovs and Kuz are wartime proven?

AB is atm worlds most numerous capital ship with very good service record, what else you can ask from it.

Very good observation.


So, what is the better ship based on the wartime experiences against capable enemies :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Abraham_Lincoln_(CVN-72)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov
?

The best that we can say is "we don't know" , unless you know a lot of classified information.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Yeah... old shit warmed over for the next 50 years... probably just as well as that will likely be all they can afford...

Well AB had as of now 3 major modernisation packages, differences between Flight 1 and Flight 3 are massive. You cant expect even US to build completely new destroyer class every 10 years.

Its almost 2 billion a ship, not like its cheap...

It is a 10,000 ton monster though. Probably qualifies better as a cruiser.

more like a "Yuuuge" waste of space. But then again, design is old so it is forgivable.

As for Kuznetsov, directed at Alpha: you are aware that it would probably be cheaper for Russia to build a new one than to possibly refit the Kuznetsov? That ship would require a ridiculous amount of work in order to make it nuclear.

Huge waste of space the AB's....? I suppose the Russian ships aren't then?.

AB is a very capable vessel. I have heard people rave on here about how good the soviet ships are despite their age...Does this only apply to russia.

Those AB's would take apart the Russian navy if it was ship verse ship. So please don't go there only the Kirov's would be able to take down an AB the rest of Russia's navy cannot.

This excludes submarines for both sides clearly also.