VMF vs. USN scenarios

Anti ship missiles don't care about size of ship and what it can do. Simple fact is, smaller Russian ships pack a massive punch. While AB is a good ship, it isn't invincible even against small ships. So don't push this bullshit narrative. But then again, your previous posts give me indication that you are full of it to begin with.

Subsonic tomahawks aren't really scary to most real military nations like Russia. So no, those AB aren't scary. Good land attack capabilities though. Won't deny that.

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.

Why is it "waste of space" exactly? Also its not really an old design, everyone else even today is copying features that AB bought into spotlight, and will keep to do in future too. If AB is old design then for an example Borei submarines are also, as the poject was originally started in 80s.

Singular_Transform wrote:

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.

I will go with Nimitz class. Unless Kuz overnight tripled in size, quadrupled its airwing and got nuclear propulsion.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

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.

I will go with Nimitz class. Unless Kuz overnight tripled in size, quadrupled its airwing and got nuclear propulsion.

Shtorm?!

miketheterrible wrote:Anti ship missiles don't care about size of ship and what it can do. Simple fact is, smaller Russian ships pack a massive punch. While AB is a good ship, it isn't invincible even against small ships. So don't push this bullshit narrative. But then again, your previous posts give me indication that you are full of it to begin with.

Subsonic tomahawks aren't really scary to most real military nations like Russia. So no, those AB aren't scary. Good land attack capabilities though. Won't deny that.

And how many modern such "small vessels that pack a punch" vessels Russia has atm? 10? And how many ABs are there? 63, there are fkn 63.

Noone said its invincible, all we are saying is that discarting AB as something old and outdated is aganist all logic, while factually it is the best ship in its class, maybe Sejong the Great comes somewhat comparable to it.

miketheterrible wrote:Anti ship missiles don't care about size of ship and what it can do. Simple fact is, smaller Russian ships pack a massive punch.

Easy tiger. AB is heavy as fcuk for a reason, it packs a massive punch. 96 VLS cells and much more.
Like proper massive. And again there's over 60 of them active, not a token number of.. one or two.

Major league Navy. You gotta hand it to the Americans, they build em strong.



Also concerning anti ship missiles, precisely because being a corvette or a cruiser doesn't matter in getting hit, having a large number of big sticks (see AB) is all more important.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:It's gonna go through a full overhaul, there is no F'lng way that it's not getting some Nukes, unless Serdyukov is running the MoD again.

Not happening, they said no major changes will be made to the design during overhaul, at the best propulsion will be modernised in similar way like Indian carrier was.

What a waste.

Well in that case India and China will surpass them. Putin needs to clean house and get the Navy sorted pronto. They are by far the weakest and clumsiest link as it is. Order hulls from China and Korea, I don't know.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
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.

Maybe you sea different newspapers than me at the airports, but my experience is that those are marking the 26 years old Russian ships as "rusting bathtubs" and the 40 years old American ships as "magnificent example of long lasting engineering work" .


Like TV shows, mentioning that someone fly to the ISS make a remark like "but the shuttle doesn't work, you will use s Soyuz , from the country that made Chernobyl ?"

And the reality is the shuttle kill to fly ratio is 1.7%, Soyuz 0.7% .

Blow up chance 50% higher for a US made nuclear reactor.

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Anti ship missiles don't care about size of ship and what it can do. Simple fact is, smaller Russian ships pack a massive punch. While AB is a good ship, it isn't invincible even against small ships. So don't push this bullshit narrative. But then again, your previous posts give me indication that you are full of it to begin with.

Subsonic tomahawks aren't really scary to most real military nations like Russia. So no, those AB aren't scary. Good land attack capabilities though. Won't deny that.

And how many modern such "small vessels that pack a punch" vessels Russia has atm? 10? And how many ABs are there? 63, there are fkn 63.

Noone said its invincible, all we are saying is that discarting AB as something old and outdated is aganist all logic, while factually it is the best ship in its class, maybe Sejong the Great comes somewhat comparable to it.

The US made quite big investment in the past 30 years.


It will take 15 more years for Russia to make a half as big and capable navy like the US, and 15 years to Chine to make 50% bigger and more capable navy than the US.



So, if the US want to keep its current advantage then it needs to increase the military outlay to the 10% of the GDP. And that is the path of the CCCP : )

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/steaming-ahead-course-uncertain-chinas-military-shipbuilding-16266

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:It's gonna go through a full overhaul, there is no F'lng way that it's not getting some Nukes, unless Serdyukov is running the MoD again.

Not happening, they said no major changes will be made to the design during overhaul, at the best propulsion will be modernised in similar way like Indian carrier was.

What a waste.

Well in that case India and China will surpass them. Putin needs to clean house and get the Navy sorted pronto. They are by far the weakest and clumsiest link as it is. Order hulls from China and Korea, I don't know.

Yes, this is something i have been wondering as well, they could order the hulls for Type 052s and Type 055s and load it with Russian weapons and equipment.
Would be a good stopgap until there shipyards can get there sh#t together, especially Amur.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Anti ship missiles don't care about size of ship and what it can do. Simple fact is, smaller Russian ships pack a massive punch. While AB is a good ship, it isn't invincible even against small ships. So don't push this bullshit narrative. But then again, your previous posts give me indication that you are full of it to begin with.

Subsonic tomahawks aren't really scary to most real military nations like Russia. So no, those AB aren't scary. Good land attack capabilities though. Won't deny that.

And how many modern such "small vessels that pack a punch" vessels Russia has atm? 10? And how many ABs are there? 63, there are fkn 63.

Noone said its invincible, all we are saying is that discarting AB as something old and outdated is aganist all logic, while factually it is the best ship in its class, maybe Sejong the Great comes somewhat comparable to it.

The US made quite big investment in the past 30 years.


It will take 15 more years for Russia to make a half as big and capable navy like the US, and 15 years to Chine to make 50% bigger and more capable navy than the US.



So, if the US want to keep its current advantage then it needs to increase the military outlay to the 10% of the GDP. And that is the path of the CCCP : )

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/steaming-ahead-course-uncertain-chinas-military-shipbuilding-16266

Truthfully, i don't think Russia's interested in matching the U.S navy ship per ship, they've made it clear that they're more interested in a smaller and more nimbler naval force, since they're not gonna play the world policeman, if Russia becomes half as big, i think that'll be more than enough for them.

China on the other hand has no choice, they have to protect there trade routes and be able to prevent any possible naval blockades of said trade, so they're gonna need to go big or go home.

Not a chance in hell, eventually China will surpass them, they can make em cheaper and in larger numbers, it is only a matter of time.

KiloGolf wrote:Easy tiger. AB is heavy as fcuk for a reason, it packs a massive punch. 96 VLS cells and much more.

It pack a massive punch, sure, but surely NOT against enemy ship.

What missile do you think are contained in those VLS ?

The US Naval doctrine is truly "circular" for what concern dealing with enemy surface combatants, both in the offensive and in the defensive operations : Aircraft Carrier's Air Wing.
At the end of day anything rotate forcibly around that element ; in facts the offensive AShM component of practically all of theirs surface ships is totally surclassed under any cardinal parameter by opponents corresponding systems.

This very heavy reliance and dependence on air wing for naval operations (a legacy of WWII experience) is potentially the greatest liability of US Navy, anyhow the most powerful Navy at world, that has never found a true alternative -above all under a strict technological point of view - in the US post-war planning.

KiloGolf wrote:
Well in that case India and China will surpass them. Putin needs to clean house and get the Navy sorted pronto. They are by far the weakest and clumsiest link as it is. Order hulls from China and Korea, I don't know.

Not going to happen. Russia has no interest in building a navy the size of the US because they have little interest in being in a permanent state of war to justify the massive outlay and logistical cost.
I would say the same for India and China.
Russia has some nice domestic ship projects underway, and what they can do with their "gun-boats" is quite incredible, as stated by Western critics. But they'll never reach the scale of the US in the current century, there is simply no reason for it.

Also, their AShMs are very nice and are ahead of US projects as of current.

The focus is clearly on getting ground forces and air force into shape, navy comes dead last in this regard by a large margin.

I also think this has to do with a case of critical mass, to actually compete with the US on a ship-to-ship basis the sheer outlay is far, far too expensive.
In saying this, the K is off the Syrian coast at the moment, and we got to see some Kalibre launches from multiple platforms, so there is definitely an interest in in seeing the navy have something of relevance when compared to the US and China. One also has to consider that technology is advancing at a rapid pace, and naval warfare is being revolutionized by new ship vs ship weaponry, over-investing in classic-style DDGs might be what Russia is avoiding.

You people need to chill, we've earned a temporary reprieve from the threat of WW3 with the new Pres-elect, Russia can still focus on making seriously good R&D available, while also making do with what its got.

I feel like we are forgetting that Russia knows exactly where it is at capability wise.

Militarov wrote:

I will go with Nimitz class. Unless Kuz overnight tripled in size, quadrupled its airwing and got nuclear propulsion.

The US navy require 2% of the US GDP.
The NAVY using the 2/3 of the US military GDP.

Means that the US military is mainly an attack force.

If you destroy a carrier and an amphibious assault ship then you destroy 10% of the US military capability.


If you destroy the K then you destroy 0.5% of the russian military capability.

Mindstorm wrote:What missile do you think are contained in those VLS ?

Everything by 2021.

U.S. Navy Anti-Ship Tomahawk Set for Surface Ships, Subs Starting in 2021

Any U.S. Navy ship or submarine capable of firing a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) could be armed with an 1000-nautical mile anti-ship cruise missile in less than a decade, service officials told USNI News on Wednesday during the West 2016 conference. Included in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request to Congress is a $434 million ask over the next five years to modify 245 Raytheon TLAMS with a maritime attack capability, Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, told USNI News in a Wednesday interview.

According to the plan laid out in the Navy budget (and blessed by big Pentagon) the maritime attack modified Tomahawk will enter the surface force in 2021 for live testing and then trickle out to every platform that can fire the missile – currently the Ticonderoga guided missile cruisers, Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers the Navy’s attack submarine fleet (SSNs) and the four Ohio-class guided missile nuclear guided missile submarines (SSGNs). The modification will be part of the Navy’s recertification and life extension of older Tomahawks, which – with new FY 2017 funding for new TLAMS – will be ultimately an inventory of 4,000 missiles.

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021

KiloGolf wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:What missile do you think are contained in those VLS ?

Everything by 2021.

U.S. Navy Anti-Ship Tomahawk Set for Surface Ships, Subs Starting in 2021

Any U.S. Navy ship or submarine capable of firing a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) could be armed with an 1000-nautical mile anti-ship cruise missile in less than a decade, service officials told USNI News on Wednesday during the West 2016 conference. Included in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request to Congress is a $434 million ask over the next five years to modify 245 Raytheon TLAMS with a maritime attack capability, Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, told USNI News in a Wednesday interview.

According to the plan laid out in the Navy budget (and blessed by big Pentagon) the maritime attack modified Tomahawk will enter the surface force in 2021 for live testing and then trickle out to every platform that can fire the missile – currently the Ticonderoga guided missile cruisers, Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers the Navy’s attack submarine fleet (SSNs) and the four Ohio-class guided missile nuclear guided missile submarines (SSGNs). The modification will be part of the Navy’s recertification and life extension of older Tomahawks, which – with new FY 2017 funding for new TLAMS – will be ultimately an inventory of 4,000 missiles.

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021

Gatling guns will work against this wunderwaffe. It is clearly subsonic.

kvs wrote:Gatling guns will work against this wunderwaffe.   It is clearly subsonic.

Sure that works on a usual day. Although saturation attack of say.. 50-60 of them by one or a handful of Burke's will present a problem.
Like major problem. Ergo gets the job done fine and keeps the launching platforms well away from problems. 1000 nm is just unparalleled stuff.

JohninMK wrote:

kvs wrote:

Gatling guns will work against this wunderwaffe.   It is clearly subsonic.

They know that. I think you are missing its main objective, the one the Pentagon really has its sights on. This is a wunderwaffe profit generator. Many will retire rich after 4000 are in service.

It's not a wunderwaffe, it can overwhelm any surface vessel by sheer numbers and range. It's a simple logic really. 96 cells on each Burke means each of them can host a good 30 of those. Thus a forward-deployed destroyer squadron can overwhelm targets from a safe distance, in their ports or on-patrol.

Think of any major target out there and it is simply toast, easily and efficiently. Next level naval artillery really.And then you also have the SM-6 which combined with Aegis and optionally E-2D link can engage surface vessels, well over 300 km away.

OminousSpudd wrote:Also, their AShMs are very nice and are ahead of US projects as of current.

That's true, Russia is well ahead on that department tech-wise. Americans are trying to compensate by ramping up numbers of cruise missiles.
Quite "Soviet" of them actually

But each to its kind, different doctrines, different navies.

Singular_Transform wrote:If you destroy the K then you destroy 0.5% of the russian military capability.

True, but then again this assumes K is operational i.e. sailing with its air wing and all. Often times the Kuz is just sitting somewhere doing nothing. Example is right now in Syria, it sailed just to... stand down and do nothing. And next year it will spend most of the time on refit, again.

It's actually quite sad.

GarryB wrote:What is really sad is the losers who think Russia would be better off with the US Navy...

The US navy is a tool to impose US imperialism on small countries... its use against Russia would lead to the annihilation of the west and the east... it is simply not going to happen.

Bleating about 4000 mile range subsonic anti ship missiles is amusing when by 2020 the Russians will be introducing the Zircon hypersonic missile in those UKSK launch tubes they are putting on all their new ships... and in shipping crates...

Ohh, but America has 63 ABs... big fkin deal what are even half of them doing?

Reserve for a war you can't win and for all other conflict not that much use...

America could have free education and healthcare for all its citizens... or it can have a bloated MIC and military to threaten and bully the world... clearly made the right choice there... because poor people are lazy and don't need to be kept healthy right...

One Kashtan-M mount could engage 4 targets simultaneously including three with missiles and one with guns... Pantsir will likely do rather better... and soon Morfei with fire and forget missiles will be able to take on dozens of targets... at once.

All 63 ABs are active, not reserve.
I am getting wunderwaffe vibes, Kashtan-M, supersonic missiles, Pansir... but the engines are German or Ukrainian, in 2016. Of course no significant number of ships exist to carry them. In short those that belittle their opponent and have weak cards to begin with, should be very humble indeed.

Mindstorm wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:Easy tiger. AB is heavy as fcuk for a reason, it packs a massive punch. 96 VLS cells and much more.

It pack a massive punch, sure, but surely NOT against enemy ship.

What missile do you think are contained in those VLS ?

The US Naval doctrine is truly "circular" for what concern dealing with enemy surface combatants, both in the offensive and in the defensive operations : Aircraft Carrier's Air Wing.
At the end of day anything rotate forcibly around that element ; in facts the offensive AShM component of practically all of theirs surface ships is totally surclassed under any cardinal parameter by opponents corresponding systems.

This very heavy reliance and dependence on air wing for naval operations (a legacy of WWII experience) is potentially the greatest liability of US Navy, anyhow the most powerful Navy at world, that has never found a true alternative -above all under a strict technological point of view - in the US post-war planning.        

Well they also have good amount of attack submarines and you shouldnt discard Tomahawk and Harpoon like that, those are capable weapons.

ABs are a really impressive ship no question.
With only 8* Harpoon is not that scary ship-ship at the moment so LRASM will be a very big ship-ship capability boost.
Whatever their weaknesses the fact of their huge individual capability AND huge numbers means nothing is going to challenge the Burke force anytime soon.

PtG & Nakhimov might be able to beat several ABs in a 1 vs many, the Slavas maybe 1v1, China & Russia may be able to beat single CV strike groups but nothing like the numbers that US can concentrate (even without including allies).
But if it ever got to that kind of a fight we all gonna die anyway so lets all really hope it doesn't.


Doesn't mean Russia shouldn't be upgrading/replacing old ships that need it or using what it has now to help defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda & associated Jihadis.

US anti ship capabilities are the harpoons carried by Super-Hornets. It's far the best way to attack ships. They have longer range than anti-ship missiles alone as they have missile + Aircraft range. They can spot big cruiser or destroyers at 200km at least and lunch their missiles at the same range. They can destroy helicopters easily and reaload missiles easily too. Their isn't any anti air defence systeme that can threat them at these ranges and in the middle of the ocean they won't be attacked by an air force.

It's just impossible for Russia to win a naval war far away from its Mainland against US navy. Close to the shores Russia can interceped the Hornets with is own Sukhoi. And that the strategy of Russia, they don't need much as their interest is to protect the borders, not to attack the US. They could lunch their long range missiles in an ocean battle but they won't be able to reload like you reload and F-18.

I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has, as for the Karakurt it's decent, but seems redundant since we already have Buyan and Steregushchiy, unless there's something i don't know, and i am guessing reskii is dreaski or project 20386, which is a ship i am kinda disappointed at since it looks like it can hold 2x8cell UKSKs, but instead uses 2x4cell Uran luanchers.

PD, i think having competent shipyard that "can" build enough of em should be our primary concern right now, if we don't have that, than no matter how amazing the ship designs are, we'll hardly see them come to fruition.

Since we're on this topic, i feel that although the Russian navy has no intention of matching the U.S navy ship per ship, they should at least make sure to pack as much firepower to even the smallest ship.
The mainstay of the U.S navy are the Arleigh Burkes and the Ticonderoga-class, there  are 62 ABs each with around 96 missiles cells and there are 22 Tc's each with around 122 missile cells, there is no two ways around this.
IMO, i would recommend that for the future Russian fleet, Corvettes should have a minimal of 16 UKSKs (2x8cells), Frigates should have a minimal of 32 UKSKs, Destroyers a minimal of 64 UKSKs and Cruisers and/or B-cruisers should have a minimal of 128 UKSKs, although i know the U.S puts AA missiles in there VLS as well, with the number of ships they have they can have those dedicated to AD and those dedicated for anti-ship, Russia doesn't have that luxury so every ship must be well armed.

What do you guys think, ....to ambitious?