VMF vs. USN scenarios

Militarov wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:But in a 1 vs 1 battle, Buyan or more probably Karakurt for this scenario can win if it's correctly commanded.

You see that's not how the world works.

There's 63 ABs out there, 5 Buyan-M and 0 Karakurts in existence, right now.

Harsh numbers my friend. Even with no air cover those little corvettes will be eaten for lunch just by the organic Seahawks carried from FIIA onwards.

Isos wrote:SM-6 can be jammed, in my opinion, easily by the big jammers of a ship. I've read somewhere that a F-111 elec warefar jammed F-22s equipement (radar and radar receivers), so the SM-6 is not that a problem.

Anything can be jammed eventually, but right now this missile is 100% unknown quantity to the Russians. It is among the most modern gucci kit the USN is receiving and its performance is just unparalleled and highly classified.

Since you seem to base most of your assumptions on Mars... You actually do not know if the Russians have an idea about the SM-6, you do not know whether they have a counter, and you do not know how effective the SM-6 is, and you do not know that it is unparalleled (you use these buzzwords frequently, that's bias, btw). This is reality, lets get a bit grounded eh? I know you're on an anti-bias crusade, and you're a pessimist, so rather unreliable, but you could at least try to use lateral thinking.

If we are to go from Patriot (including PAC-3) or THAAD, I would not at all be so sure. The US has only ever demonstrated mediocre ability at intercepting 60s-70s era BMs, let alone AShMs, modern BMs. This is a known fact, demonstrated frequently in the field by users of such systems, now we could take these prior experiences and project them onto recent products, or we could just take manufacturer's statements at face value (of course in doing that, you have to accept things like that the F-35 is amazing, and that the F-22 has an RCS of 0.000000000000000001m2, not really navigable territory in my book, although, your defense of projects such as the DDG1000 etc. suggest that you do). Meanwhile, Russia can intercept an Onyx fired from an unknown location (to the interceptors) and successfully wipe it out using joint sensor communication with ground based radars and 1990s MiG-31BMs. Just because the US churns out equipment around the clock does not mean they are superior, especially if much of their technology falls on deep-rooted issues that a top-heavy and corrupt MiC can not deal with.

Militarov wrote:Actually Russians are the ones always using that legendary "нет аналога в мире" phase. Same words were used to describe dozens of later miserably failed projects. So i wouldnt judge there so quickly.

What? Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the noise of an American staffer talking about full-spectrum dominance. What you say maybe true on a person-to-person basis, and more applicable during the Soviet times, but today? I do not see it anywhere to the same extent as coming from the West. Hell, saying it is the best is part & parcel of selling the damn things now... That's on an official level, and not just for the export market, but to their own country. Show me the same happening from the Ru side. Anyway, I do not recall saying Russian projects never fail. Lets stay on topic shall we?

Militarov wrote:Its highly doubtful Russians have any deeper knowledge on SM-6, i agree on that one... i base that asumption on fact that certain figures on certain military forums are working in Ru MOD and use forums to gather interesting data on certain items. There is one of them being very active member on Keypublishing for an example.

You wouldn't know. The Americans wouldn't know. Welcome to being an observer from afar. Logically, being a "new" system, the SM-6 should be unknown, yes, but how often has that been the case throughout history?

This obsessive navel gazing, like we influence what happens in the field, I see it here quite a bit. Members of Ru MoD browsing forums for information to use as official data? And that's what you would base their intel level on a weapons system off of? Come off it. Intel gathering is far more sophisticated than simply jumping on forums and reading about the latest hardware, the point is to be ahead of the curve, not read about it in the local paper over a morning coffee.  We're not important, and the info discussed is only what we can see provided by official releases, which would have been read ten times over by proper staff already. To think that anything said here makes any difference at all, other than to the average joe, is incredibly detached from reality. If that was the case, I'd be seriously concerned about people posting deployment locations and numbers as we have in some of the threads here, and ex-service members would be being hauled up left right and center for leaking classified information.

Any useful bit of information could be useless information, imagine how simple it would be to spread disinformation if everyone was browsing everyone else's forum so as to devise the next strategy, weapon, battle.  

Militarov wrote:Also you are doing same you accuse him of doing. Russians can do this or that... sure, with what % of repetitive success? We shot down F-16 in 1999. we couldnt repeat it. They jammed the shit out of us we couldnt listen to local radio.

That's the point though, isn't it? I can say that Russia can destroy supersonic missiles and that they are unparalleled because some tests say they are... Or you could say the SM-6 is unparalleled because a bunch of tests say it is.

... Or we could, idk, use a little bit of lateral thinking and compare history.

Actually yes, i have seen more than one Russian military manuals that are 100% made of data taken from Wikipedia, and no i am not joking. M1A1 Abrams manual i saw made by RuMOD was 100/100 translated Wikipedia article about it.

So ye, there is no really Russian James Bond hanging on elastic cables in some hangar in Area 51 spying on SM-6.

However they are not interested in tell-told things on the forums, they are interested in scans of the manuals, pictures, graphs... alot of which sooner or later appears on forums. That is giving less results, but costs almost nothing in terms of obtaining.

You are aware that is how we in Serbia knew when US aircraft were taking off the Aviano? Via one italian aircraft spotter forum. Real life is not James Bond shit... get used to it.

Militarov wrote:Actually yes, i have seen more than one Russian military manuals that are 100% made of data taken from Wikipedia, and no i am not joking. M1A1 Abrams manual i saw made by RuMOD was 100/100 translated Wikipedia article about it.

So ye, there is no really Russian James Bond hanging on elastic cables in some hangar in Area 51 spying on SM-6.

Militarov wrote:However they are not interested in tell-told things on the forums, they are interested in scans of the manuals, pictures, graphs... alot of which sooner or later appears on forums. That is giving less results, but costs almost nothing in terms of obtaining.

Militarov wrote:You are aware that is how we in Serbia knew when US aircraft were taking off the Aviano? Via one italian aircraft spotter forum.

Militarov wrote:Real life is not James Bond shit... get used to it.

OminousSpudd wrote:

Militarov wrote:Actually yes, i have seen more than one Russian military manuals that are 100% made of data taken from Wikipedia, and no i am not joking. M1A1 Abrams manual i saw made by RuMOD was 100/100 translated Wikipedia article about it.

So ye, there is no really Russian James Bond hanging on elastic cables in some hangar in Area 51 spying on SM-6.

Wow, quite the conclusion. You've seen a "manual" on the M1A1 that took ver batim info off Wikipedia, therefore Russia can't have a James Bond in the rafters at Area 51... Oh, and you've seen MoD people on forums.
Weapons and counter-weapons development is usually carried out by smart people in research complexes with simulations, physical and digital, on small and grand scale, using theoretical and applied knowledge... Espionage is usually conducted through the digital world these days, from my understanding.

Militarov wrote:However they are not interested in tell-told things on the forums, they are interested in scans of the manuals, pictures, graphs... alot of which sooner or later appears on forums. That is giving less results, but costs almost nothing in terms of obtaining.

Yes, very good. Refer back to my previous statement, the words you're looking for are in block font.

Militarov wrote:You are aware that is how we in Serbia knew when US aircraft were taking off the Aviano? Via one italian aircraft spotter forum.

This has everything to do with weapons development I'm sure, I just haven't seen it yet. You're talking early versions of what we see today all the time, real-time data gathering via the internet, whoopdeedoo? Wouldn't plan a battle on it... or a weapon. As far as I know, Serbia didn't exactly have many options did it?
Russia = Superpower, their options available are sort of more extensive, if there was a list of preferences as to how they acquire their intel, internet forums would be somewhere near the bottom I imagine.  

Militarov wrote:Real life is not James Bond shit... get used to it.

James Bond was a bit before my time sorry. He's not as iconic among my generation, try Jason Bourne.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:I have to saz that the RUN improving its navy quite effectivly.

They are more cost effective now than the CCCP has been ever.

Now they are better than the US in ship design and building.

Cost effective? Sure, same as Serbian river flotilla is far more cost effective than US Navy.

"Better than the US in ship design and building"...

Now you are trolling us abit here.

Small ship that can launch 2000 km range rocket?

Cheap and effective?

That is the point.

The decisions/ designs follow a clear low cost/ high return strategy.

Something that you miss from the CCCP / USA naval shipbuilding.

For Russia, the real make it / break it moment will be the Kazan.

That will be the first , top range / top complexity weapon system made in Russia since the collapse of the CCCP.

Actually, that will be the most complex / sophisticated  submarine build in the past 20 years on the earth - if they can make it in two years.


But based on the BN-800 and FNPP they have now the necessary management skills.

Militarov wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

Militarov wrote:Actually yes, i have seen more than one Russian military manuals that are 100% made of data taken from Wikipedia, and no i am not joking. M1A1 Abrams manual i saw made by RuMOD was 100/100 translated Wikipedia article about it.

So ye, there is no really Russian James Bond hanging on elastic cables in some hangar in Area 51 spying on SM-6.

Wow, quite the conclusion. You've seen a "manual" on the M1A1 that took ver batim info off Wikipedia, therefore Russia can't have a James Bond in the rafters at Area 51... Oh, and you've seen MoD people on forums.
Weapons and counter-weapons development is usually carried out by smart people in research complexes with simulations, physical and digital, on small and grand scale, using theoretical and applied knowledge... Espionage is usually conducted through the digital world these days, from my understanding.

Militarov wrote:However they are not interested in tell-told things on the forums, they are interested in scans of the manuals, pictures, graphs... alot of which sooner or later appears on forums. That is giving less results, but costs almost nothing in terms of obtaining.

Yes, very good. Refer back to my previous statement, the words you're looking for are in block font.

Militarov wrote:You are aware that is how we in Serbia knew when US aircraft were taking off the Aviano? Via one italian aircraft spotter forum.

This has everything to do with weapons development I'm sure, I just haven't seen it yet. You're talking early versions of what we see today all the time, real-time data gathering via the internet, whoopdeedoo? Wouldn't plan a battle on it... or a weapon. As far as I know, Serbia didn't exactly have many options did it?
Russia = Superpower, their options available are sort of more extensive, if there was a list of preferences as to how they acquire their intel, internet forums would be somewhere near the bottom I imagine.  

Militarov wrote:Real life is not James Bond shit... get used to it.

James Bond was a bit before my time sorry. He's not as iconic among my generation, try Jason Bourne.

Unlike some here i have Master degree in technical field, and i worked on more than one military/police project as contractor as far as my IT department goes. And dont.. just dont explain me how "real time data sharing" works i beg you, i dont mean disrespect but if you recall i am com officer.

And yes, majority of Russian MOD manuals are garbage assembled from data from the Internet... you can buy some on Ebay and see for yourself. At least they removed Wiki hyperlinks.

And no, it has to do with how intelligence department works. All of you online warriors think its bunch of guys sitting in front of huge wall covering LCD screen live feeding satelite imagery. In reality its nowhere even close, majority of intelligence agencies do not even have access to such resources and they recieve them via second hand upon request.

Russian intelligence officers were coming to our units asking, begging and bribing to get pieces and take photos of Tomahawks, Predators and those German UAVs i even forgot the name and similar.

While alot of stuff can be researched in labs..that is in almost 90% of cases pure guessing. Until you have item in your hands to inspect it properly, see electronics, or whatever, depending on what we are talking about, you dont have anything solid. There are hundreds of cases where false data and false informations were passed via counter-intelligence in last few decades, and we are aware of more than few cases were Soviets were chasing such data which had no value whatsoever so they wasted valuable resources.

Well i told you what is the fact, now what you think or belive..well..its your right.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:I have to saz that the RUN improving its navy quite effectivly.

They are more cost effective now than the CCCP has been ever.

Now they are better than the US in ship design and building.

Cost effective? Sure, same as Serbian river flotilla is far more cost effective than US Navy.

"Better than the US in ship design and building"...

Now you are trolling us abit here.

Small ship that can launch 2000 km range rocket?

Cheap and effective?

That is the point.

The decisions/ designs follow a clear low cost/ high return strategy.

Something that you miss from the CCCP / USA naval shipbuilding.

For Russia, the real make it / break it moment will be the Kazan.

That will be the first , top range / top complexity weapon system made in Russia since the collapse of the CCCP.

Actually, that will be the most complex / sophisticated  submarine build in the past 20 years on the earth - if they can make it in two years.


But based on the BN-800 and FNPP they have now the necessary management skills.

Russia has better ship building then United States?. I pray this is a joke,

The Navy is third for Russia and always will be.

The United States NAVy is number ONE for us so it gets the most funds.

Lets compare the rate of construction of ships for Russia and the US with tonnage you got to be FANBOYING HARD over Russia to honestly believe russia has a better ship building program then the states.

Russia can't even get 2k plus tonnage ships out in two years and you telling us they are better than a nation who can get such a ship out faster. That is hilarious.

for submarines sure you can argue Russia is better than the US in that area but surface ships, hell no. Russia has a very very very very weak shipbuilding program. I don't even want to know how long it will take hem to finish one Lider class, nevermind the yearly delays they will announce with a single ship of that class.

OminousSpudd wrote:
Well, at least you have the experience to back up your statements,  I definitely respect that for what it is, and will certainly defer to it over mine.
I do not at all believe intelligence is about some fucking Hollywood live-streaming satellite data bullshit.... But whatever, interesting that this is the impression you got from what I said.

It's common on both sides to chase useless information, WWII was a shitshow of it. In my mind it would be far easier for misinformation to make it to the forefront of R&D if so much attention was paid to the internet like you say...
But, clearly you are more experienced in this field, I wasn't attempting to educate you on how these things work.

Isos wrote:There is no need to know everything about all the weapon the other has. You know tomahawaks are long range missiles which flies at very low altitudes so pantsir will be good at shooting them, who care of there electronic. I mean it isn't because you know how a rifle is made that it won't kill you.

USSR tried to spy western tech but that made them always behind western in technologies. It's logic. Russia learned that and isn't doing the same mistake.

Russia managed to take control of a US drone in Crimea and in Iran (russian technology) so they are not so behind western specialy now that Asian countries are matching US in electronics and that their is no more Military electronics. I visited MBDA with my school and one ingineer said us that's a problem for them because they have to use civilian electronics which are more delicate.


The LRASM is just a cruise missile with a radar. Put a radar on a Kalibr 2500km+ and you have the same missile.

JohninMK wrote:Just as the US has had to have a major military shipbuilding ability for the last 100 years or so, Russia, apart from its MAD ballistic submarines and their protectors, has not.

That is why the RuN is tiny in comparison to the USN and some other world navies. It is why the RuN will get updated but will never amount to much, it has no need to project itself on the other side of oceans. If Russia wants to go somewhere it drives there. It is the world's only land based super power.

Just look at Syria for example, the K and its little fleet are just puff, completely unnecessary. The real naval work done there was done primarily by a small group of old, large, but not large in US terms, landing craft, a few clapped out old merchant ships bought in for the job, moving the best part of 45,000 tons a month, with a couple of frigates and a sub to keep them company. Compare that to the US Sealift Command.

The Russian military is above all else a defensive, second strike operation. The RuN has and will only get money for that activity. So much of the discussion in this tread seems to be a bit, how shall I say it, optimistic.

JohninMK wrote:Just as the US has had to have a major military shipbuilding ability for the last 100 years or so, Russia, apart from its MAD ballistic submarines and their protectors, has not.

That is why the RuN is tiny in comparison to the USN and some other world navies. It is why the RuN will get updated but will never amount to much, it has no need to project itself on the other side of oceans. If Russia wants to go somewhere it drives there. It is the world's only land based super power.

Just look at Syria for example, the K and its little fleet are just puff, completely unnecessary. The real naval work done there was done primarily by a small group of old, large, but not large in US terms, landing craft, a few clapped out old merchant ships bought in for the job, moving the best part of 45,000 tons a month, with a couple of frigates and a sub to keep them company. Compare that to the US Sealift Command.

The Russian military is above all else a defensive, second strike operation. The RuN has and will only get money for that activity. So much of the discussion in this tread seems to be a bit, how shall I say it, optimistic.

GarryB wrote:The Russian Navy is performing its mission.

GarryB wrote:The job of the Russian Navy is to maintain an SSBN fleet able to wipe all the western shit off the surface of the planet and they already achieve that.

kvs wrote:Russia inferior!  US and NATO number one!

GarryB wrote:Blah blah blah.... Russian Navy is not US Navy so it is crap.

Fact is US Navy is a force for evil in this world and the sooner it drains the funds from the US social programmes the sooner the US will have their next civil war and become irrelevant.

The Russian Navy is performing its mission.

Militarov wrote:Kirov was not build by Russia, for a start.. dipshit. Kirov was built by USSR.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:Kirov was not build by Russia, for a start.. dipshit. Kirov was built by USSR.

All RuN cruisers and carriers came out of an Ukrainian shipyard. That's very true.
Loosing Ukraine was a huge blow for Russia and their Navy.

Militarov wrote:
Actually atm imo we have no clue wtf is their "mission". I dont think they have real doctrine and plan at this moment. They are building small ships and diesel electric subs, and dream about Carriers, LHDs and destroyers, yet they claim they do not need them as they do not need to project power... 3 fleet commanders even claim different things. Then they bought bunch of commercal rust-buckets to transport goods to Syria in late 2015....

Militarov wrote:
And then you have this expedition to Syria, then you have ships that are not supposed to be ocean-going ships sailing to Syrian coast then... its a mess. I personally do not see any doctrine there. They tried bying Mistrals then when they were denied everyone started saying "meeeh Russia doesnt need them anyways". Now they overhaul Nakhimov...they now plan to overhaul Kuz...

Militarov wrote:
My 5 cents are like this, yes, Russia does want to be able and project power, yes, Russia does want to be blue water navy, but atm there are no facilities for that. There is not enough of ships, there is not enough of capital ships, there is no enough friendly ports, there is not enough of auxilary ships (here i mean supply ships, oilers, weapon transport ships etc) and there is severe issue with shipbuilding. That is what i think. Now some might agree, some might disagree but i keep my right to say what i think.

Ned86 wrote:I Don't know why someone delete my post, but I would like to ask him that next time send me a private message and explain the reason for that.
Anyway I will repeat it........

Militarov wrote:
Actually atm imo we have no clue wtf is their "mission". I dont think they have real doctrine and plan at this moment. They are building small ships and diesel electric subs, and dream about Carriers, LHDs and destroyers, yet they claim they do not need them as they do not need to project power... 3 fleet commanders even claim different things. Then they bought bunch of commercal rust-buckets to transport goods to Syria in late 2015....

What they are building you can check here
http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/146200.html

In short, they are building 5 Yasen SSGN, plus 2 special purpose nuclear submarines (Belgorod and Khabarovsk) for carrying still classified weapon load.
Also, they already build 6 Project 636 "Black Holes" ocean going submarines and ordered another 6. Also, they are finishing another 2 Lada class diesel submarines.

They are app. 15 first and second rank ships currently in shipyard with most of them joining navy by 2020. Recently 3 Frigates Grigorovich class joined navy.
Also, they are actively modernizing existing ships like Nakhimov, Ustinov, Chabanenko and other udaloy class destroyers.

Militarov wrote:
And then you have this expedition to Syria, then you have ships that are not supposed to be ocean-going ships sailing to Syrian coast then... its a mess. I personally do not see any doctrine there. They tried bying Mistrals then when they were denied everyone started saying "meeeh Russia doesnt need them anyways". Now they overhaul Nakhimov...they now plan to overhaul Kuz...

Only small ships (not ocean going officially) that they were using are Buyan M class, but they shot from Caspian and Mediterranean sea which are not oceans. Later they shown that even small Buyan M can travel in Atlantic......

Syria is great success for Ru navy. Although they don't possess aircraft carriers like US to create "propaganda" videos, but they managed to deploy more powerful aircraft like Su-34 and Su-35 on Syria territory. No matter what, you can't have something like Su-34 taking off from Carrier.

Militarov wrote:
My 5 cents are like this, yes, Russia does want to be able and project power, yes, Russia does want to be blue water navy, but atm there are no facilities for that. There is not enough of ships, there is not enough of capital ships, there is no enough friendly ports, there is not enough of auxilary ships (here i mean supply ships, oilers, weapon transport ships etc) and there is severe issue with shipbuilding. That is what i think. Now some might agree, some might disagree but i keep my right to say what i think.

Russia is able to project power and they are showing that in Syria. They created several bases(air and naval) in distance country and cover them with S-400 and S-300. Also, many of guys on forum neglect success of Tu-22M3M which shown great performance in Syria, and it is great machine apart from Tu-95 and Tu-160 for projecting power. Russian air force and naval aviation posses a lot of Tu-22M3 which are armed with supersonic missiles which in case of war could send most of carriers to the ocean bottom........

Also, all the time you purposely neglect Russian navy submarine force. In their doctrine, nuclear submarines are their main naval weapons. With Oscar II, Akula, Sierra and Kilos they are able to project power and to challenge any navy in the world, even US.

Militarov wrote:

I am well aware what they are building, we all are.

Buyan-Ms are really, really not suited for Atlantic ocean, and Med itself can be classified as "ocean-going" in almost every single characteristic, despite we call it a sea. South-Chinese sea is also "sea" which is basically...ocean.

Su-34 actually was born from platform that was supposed to be flown from an aircraft carrier . I am actually quite sure by adding a hook you could use it from the carrier even without any further modifications.

Projecting power is not flying from Russia to Syria and dropping 6 500kg bombs. Projection of power is when you can deploy major taskforce, LHDs, carriers, auxilary fleet with fuel, ammunition, armored units...on division scale. Which Russia atm cant do. Russian contingent in Syria is more or less similar to what France deployed to Mali 2 years back.

Russian submarines are part of nuclear triade, the only thing they can hold on and claim they have major naval force. That is the only part of the navy where they tried investing some money even in 90s in hopes to preserve at least title of "major power" though those hard times.

We can put aside questions like "should they", "Why would they" etc. That is different discussion.