VMF vs. USN scenarios

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.

Mediterenian is not an ocean. It is conected to the Atlantic via Narrow Gibraltar strait...
it is in fact ideal for Buyan M and Project 22160 patrols.....small and stealthy Buyan is hard to detect, still with Kalibr missile system it posses more land attack firepower then most NATO destroyers....

Militarov wrote:
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.

You are talking about su-33UB which made first flight 1999. Su-34 frst flown 1990 and from beginning it was designed as fighter bomber to replace Su-24. They never planed to use it on Aircraft carrier simply because it is too heavy....

Militarov wrote:
Projecting power is not flying from Russia to Syria and dropping 6 500kg bombs.

That is also projecting power. Not much countries can do that? right?

Militarov wrote:
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.

Regarding France intervention in Mali, they deployed few helicopters and made several airstrikes with few Rafaele and that is it. It is not even close to Russian operation in syria. Russia deployed more than 50 airplanes in Syria of different kind, from Su-24, Su-34, Su-25, Su-30, Su-35.....as well as attack helicopters Mi-28, Mi-35 and Ka-52. They created 2+ permanent bases there, Tartus and Khmeimim plus few other bases which they used and using when they need it. They deployed S-400 and S-300 missile defense system, Iskander ballistic missiles and Onyx supersonic cruise anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles there. Mate, that is real power projection.

Well although Russian navy don't have LHD like Mistral, they still have 20 Large landing ships like Ropucha class. For example Mistral can take 40 Leclerc Tank + 450 troops while Ropucha can take 10 tanks+ 350 troops . For sure Mistral is larger but France has only 3, so that means maximum 120 tanks( even French army has only about 200 ative Leclerc tank anyway).
While with 20 Ropuchas theoretically russia can deploy 200 tanks. Not to mention smaler landing crafts like Zubr, Serna, Dygon and etc.
They miss helicopter decks for Ka-52K, but still they can "replace it" with Tu-22M3 and strategic aviation which France doesn't have.

Militarov wrote:
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.

Again you are spinning information. I was not talking about 12 Strategic SSBN submarines. I was talking about SSGN(Oscar and Yasen), SSN(Akula, Sierra, Victor) and SSK submarines which Russia has approximately around 40. That is their main naval weapons.

YOU FORGOT mayor thing that Russia posses probably the best airborne troops and they can deploy divisions of special forces very quickly, which is far more better then doing that with LHD.

so what is the reason behind the belief by some that Rus navy will Stay stagnant in its present deplorable state? Corruption? not enough motivation on part of the government? cause im pretty sure they can catch up with Technology and Production, so what gives?

Project Canada wrote:
so what is the reason behind the belief by some that Rus navy will Stay stagnant in its present deplorable state? Corruption? not enough motivation on part of the government? cause im pretty sure they can catch up with Technology and Production, so what gives?

Russian Navy is not stagnant but the Navy is not as important to Russia as it is to the USA. Take a look at the map of the world to see that. To Russia, a Navy is a defensive weapon and to the USA both an offensive and defensive weapon. To the USA, their Navy and Marines allows them to impose their will around the world. Do you thing Russia should impose it's will around the world? If so then Russia becomes no better then the USA.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Rmf wrote:

but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

The US shipbuilding is the fraction that is used to be, like the UK.

It is not capable any more to make ships like that.

They simply do not build commercial shipping for cruises due to extremly high labour cost. Skilled welder in the US has 2-3 times bigger pay than he gets in South Korea, Japan or UK. From what i recall they havent actually built a cruise ship since... early 60s probably. So companies do not order such ships in the States. They co-produced few in late 90s and 2000s.

US shipbuilding is mostly fighting for military and various state contracts, fishing and auxilary private fleets, some big business cargo ships and similar, yachts, oil platfroms etc. You wont find many major sized recreational ships being built in the States, as companies that order such ships get far better prices in Asia, even Europe. And as private company, you surely want to save money. However the do alot of maintenance in their shipyards, almost all ships bought abroad are being maintained in their shipyards to preserve jobs.

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:..........

Yea, i always though Russian Destroyers were odd in that prospective, it's like the Soviets were trying to make it an ASW ship with token AntSh capabilities.

I know that, but at the same time i also believe Russia shouldn't ignore the adversaries combat capabilities, from what i can see the R.navy is putting high hopes in there Supersonic and soon Hypersonic missiles, while they're hoping to offset any firepower advantage of the adversary with capable Air defenses, it's a good strategy, but why hold back.

They are not ignoring adversary's capabilities, they are just dealing with them within their budgetary and doctrinal boundaries.

And they are not really holding back. They have plenty of tools available, it's just that most of those tools are land based.

For nuclear countries above certain size facing each other surface fleets are not there to fight head on, their job is to draw attention to themselves in order to create an opening for nuclear submarines. They don't expect to survive direct confrontation one way or the other despite who wins the naval battle because their (and everyone else's) fate will be decided by other branches of the military. This goes for US surface navy as well regardless of their size.

Surface fleets come into play when confronting non-nuclear medium sized enemies in conventional war. That is where all that weaponry they carry can (and does) decide the outcome.    


And you are definitely right about comparing ship classes of RU and US Navies.

Damn, i am late.

Is that it, every time this gets brought up it's always a "budgetary and doctrinal problem", your opponent could fire 96 or even 48 missiles to end you, and all these frigates got is 16 missiles to respond, what is the doctrinal logic here??
Seriously, even the Kirov only had 20 P-700s where's the logic??

The states ain't gonna play your land based game.

So the RuNavy exists for the Nuclear triad?

Except all these non-nuclear medium sized opponent have joined forces and formed what is now NATO, so what you gonna do?

I just find it odd that there's so few missiles.

Project Canada wrote:
so what is the reason behind the belief by some that Rus navy will Stay stagnant in its present deplorable state? Corruption? not enough motivation on part of the government? cause im pretty sure they can catch up with Technology and Production, so what gives?

It is "stagnant" in the minds of the local hater circle jerk club. Listening to these clowns you would think that Russia has not built and is not
building a single submarine of any type. As has been pointed out several times to the Cruise Princess he systematically ignores the Russian
submarine program in all of his BS "evaluations". For some reason they expect Russia to spend $100 billion per year just on
modernizing and growing the Navy including the building of WWII dinosaur aircraft carriers that are beyond obsolete in 2016. There is zero need
for this on the part of Russia and the original military upgrade program did not call for such development pathway. The necessary investments
in submarine construction are being made and Russia does not have the pool of fiat to blow on internet fanboi fantasy procurement
desires.

x_54_u43 wrote:Could you please tell us your thoughts on Carrier Aviation Wing being used in a anti-ship role?

It is obvious to anyone that LRASM is by no means even close to X-31 or Onyx and such.

But since LRASM will be entering service soon enough, and with LRASM range combined with combat radius of carrying aircraft, as well as possibility of in-flight refueling, such range would be far greater than any ship-borne anti-ship missile.

With such range advantage, as well as large numbers of carried munitions per aircraft and large numbers of aircraft carried per carrier, would you not be able to achieve an acceptable level of success? Being able to hit your opponent outside of the range where he can hit you is a very large advantage.

This concept, in facts, is at the basis of the US Navy doctrine since WWII and ,given the permanence of the carrier wing "variable" the overall balance in a conventional engagement between a formation including one or more US Navy CVBGs in a blue water environment (more than 1400 km from enemy shore) and any surface ship group of any enemy Navy of this planet would be lopsided in US Navy favour, in particular in relation to the capability of carrier air wing to progressively deplete the defensive capabilities of enemy formations in open sea capitalizing the chance to attack repeatedly from outside the engagement range of opponent's ships.


Obviously the Federation's Naval doctrine since Soviet Union times have always taken into account this central "allowing" element of the US Navy; the constituting ideas at its foundation was ,for conventional scenarios, in four main directions :

1) Maintain a significative technological advantage in antiship missile and antiship missile defense technology in comparison to NATO nations so to assure that, in the removing from the equation the carrier wing factor the entire composition of US surface Navy would suddenly collapse in the almost complete irrelevance for naval engagements.
In the event of the elimination of the air wing element, in facts, single Soviet Navy units would have been capable to engage and destroy a much higher number of enemy surface ships from almost complete stand-off safety.

2) Create an highly resilient multispectral, multiplatform sensors network ,from strategic to in-theatre level ,encopassing the entire level's gamut of theirs basing (under surface, surface, air and space based) capable to continously and reliably assure detection and tracking of the position of the big formations of surface and submerged US Navy units that would have been forced to remain in limited area of sea to assure a defensive coverage for the essential aircraft carrier element and transfer the positional data to air, sea and submerged units.

3) Create highly specialized antiship weapons based on platforms not allowing NATO CVBG to capitalize the range advantage offered by theirs aviation elements. The natural selection was for : supersonic bombers capable to takeoff from airbases at thousands of km of distances protected by the titanic domestic IAD (the domestic constitutive "allowing" element) and capable to delivery at very high speed, theirs payload from well outside the effective engagement range of carrier DCA Group, submarines capable to employ those state of art antiship weapons from well outside the defensive submarine complement of CVBGs.


4) Create limited safe-heaven areas - the so called "santuaries" - near to Federation's shores where was effectively impossible for NATO aircraft, ships and submarine to operate; so to assure a safe basin for the surface fleets to replenish offensive and defensive weapons or wait for the previously mentioned elements to enter into play allowing them to fully capitalize theirs superior weapon suit.

       

Today the basis of those relative naval doctrines remain more or less the same (with the obvious intercurring technological advancements on both sides).
The most equilibrated western article on that last subject -even if with some notable and gross mistakes coming out, mostly, from the employement of material of P. Bukowski  - is this one :

http://www.defenceiq.com/air-land-and-sea-defence-services/articles/russian-strategy-and-the-evolving-anti-accessarea

You can easily infer the relevance of the adaption of a "navalized" AGM-158 for ship and aircraft launch in comparison with the impact on the realive balance equation of the plurality of those domestic programs.......
As already said , no much is destined to change, in the near/middle term, in the relative weapon balance and operational doctrine in both sides, in respect to Cold War situation.

JohninMK wrote:Losing their Air Groups eyes/ears and air tankers is another potential weakness. Regardless of their use on land, 1000 miles out to sea and out of the public's sight, nukes almost instantly come into play and those carriers are the juiciest targets on Earth. Sitting ducks.

Nukes don't come into play when things are kept at conventional level. Also I doubt all US carrier groups can be eliminated by nukes, let alone whether its sensible to waste some precious ICBMs on so many of the scattered, NATO carrier groups. Carrier groups that have an increasing number of tools (read ABM escorts) to blast some of the incoming, but also evade them.

Again, silver bullet logic doesn't really apply here.

KiloGolf wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Losing their Air Groups eyes/ears and air tankers is another potential weakness. Regardless of their use on land, 1000 miles out to sea and out of the public's sight, nukes almost instantly come into play and those carriers are the juiciest targets on Earth. Sitting ducks.

Nukes don't come into play when things are kept at conventional level. Also I doubt all US carrier groups can be eliminated by nukes, let alone whether its sensible to waste some precious ICBMs on so many of the scattered, NATO carrier groups. Carrier groups that have an increasing number of tools (read ABM escorts) to blast some of the incoming, but also evade them.

Again, silver bullet logic doesn't really apply here.

You will never see a big naval battle between the biggest powers in a war at conventional level. This is not compatible. Big naval battle means total war, and total war is nuclear war.

eehnie wrote:You will never see a big naval battle between the biggest powers in a war at conventional level. This is not compatible. Big naval battle means total war, and total war is nuclear war.

I didn't talk about Jutland-style naval battle at all. Not that what you posted is true anyway, you can have a skirmish between a strong global power like USA and the small surface fleet like Russia's. Nothing will happen so as to escalate to nuclear if say a USN cruiser rams and sinks a small Russia corvette due to ''navigational error'' or if a Russian SSK ''accidentally'' torpedoes and USN destroyer. Politicians will talk over the phone and that's it.

JohninMK wrote:Thanks Mindstorm, liked that. The discussion here seems to be going down a US vs Russia dead end.

As I see it the potential targets of the ASM-158 etc are not the real danger for the US carriers were there ever to be a US/Russia war. As you say, the real dangers are well over the horizon and who knows where under the waves. Losing their Air Groups eyes/ears and air tankers is another potential weakness. Regardless of their use on land, 1000 miles out to sea and out of the public's sight, nukes almost instantly come into play and those carriers are the juiciest targets on Earth. Sitting ducks.

I can't see anything coming along that is going to change that. But then a US/Russia war is not why they are there, their target is the rest of the World. Their problem is that the rest of the World, in particular China, is starting, much to the concern of the USN, to get on top of the problem.

Considering the Russian navy's doctrine currently is more defensive (near the coast operating under AD and Sea Denial umbrellas) the US navy would face more threats than just surface and submarine vessels. TU-22 squadrons have standoff range with AS-4s. Volley fires from many systems from the air and sea would be trouble for US ships. Of course this is assuming the Russian area denial assets aren't destroyed.

I see, well i figured as much, the reason Russia put so little missiles in there ships is because of there absolute faith in their AnSh missiles and Air defenses along with their main offensive weapon being their Nuclear triad.

Yet, why not put more missiles in play if that was the case, oh well.

KiloGolf wrote:

eehnie wrote:You will never see a big naval battle between the biggest powers in a war at conventional level. This is not compatible. Big naval battle means total war, and total war is nuclear war.

I didn't talk about Jutland-style naval battle at all. Not that what you posted is true anyway, you can have a skirmish between a strong global power like USA and the small surface fleet like Russia's. Nothing will happen so as to escalate to nuclear if say a USN cruiser rams and sinks a small Russia corvette due to ''navigational error'' or if a Russian SSK ''accidentally'' torpedoes and USN destroyer. Politicians will talk over the phone and that's it.

A destroyer, or even a corvette are not like a Su-24 in terms of killed crew. Something like that would be very close to the not return point, like happened in 1941 with the official entry of the US in the WWII.

AlfaT8 wrote:the reason Russia put so little missiles in there ships is......

Sorry it is not clear what you want to say : do you mean that traditionally missiles on board of Russian ships are physically smaller than westrern counterparts (and obviously it was always the exact contrary) ? Or you mean "few missiles" -numerically inferior- of western ships ? ...... Also this is obviously the contrary of reality.


Even more important is the complex chain of technological achievements and lucid planning allowing a plurality of very low tonnage surface and submerged units to mount on-board very long range missiles having the capability to fully capitalize theirs performances.

US Navy planners today are frantically attempting to integrate the concept of "distributed lethality" (universally accepted as a fundamental requirement to fight future war at sea) in theirs designs and doctrine, but have get an hard time even only to integrate Harpoon on theirs LCS.

Federation's Navy has given a clear proof of the operative meaning of this concept already more than an year ago.

There was a sketch of upgraded Sov I was looking at recently that was I think part of Almaz Sthil-1 promo, can't find it right now though cry

Found the pic

No wonder I couldn't re-find it, it's an Udaloy on Klub promo stuff
Looking at it it's just a visual of UKSK & 2* variants of inclined launchers rather than an actual upgrade suggestion with Shtil-1 VLS + inclined Calibr that I'd thought it was

VladimirSahin wrote:TU-22 squadrons have standoff range with AS-4s.

But Tu-22M3 with such load-out has loiter time of potato and no in-flight refueling capability.
SM-3 and SM-6 can blast it out of the sky before it can deploy that glorified, obsolete silver bullet of a missile.

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TU-22 squadrons have standoff range with AS-4s.

But Tu-22M3 with such load-out has loiter time of potato and no in-flight refueling capability.
SM-3 and SM-6 can blast it out of the sky before it can deploy that glorified, obsolete silver bullet of a missile.

It is a bit too much capability expected from the AB.

It has only 96 launch tube.

Each onyx cost 2 launch tube (8 mid range missile) , smallest salvo 16 missile, 32 tube .
You need 4 long range missile against each aircraft, means 32 for 8 air plane.


And it need tubes as well for ABM purposes, it needs the remaining tubes for that.


In that case the AB can defend against 8 aircraft and 16 onyx with 50-80% survival chance (estimate)

Question is if it can attack a bomber before it deploy the its weapons.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TU-22 squadrons have standoff range with AS-4s.

But Tu-22M3 with such load-out has loiter time of potato and no in-flight refueling capability.
SM-3 and SM-6 can blast it out of the sky before it can deploy that glorified, obsolete silver bullet of a missile.

It is a bit too much capability expected from the AB.

It has only 96 launch tube.

Each onyx cost 2 launch tube (8 mid range missile) , smallest salvo 16 missile, 32 tube .
You need 4 long range missile against each aircraft, means 32 for 8 air plane.


And it need tubes as well for ABM purposes, it needs the remaining tubes for that.


In that case the AB can defend against 8 aircraft and 16 onyx with 50-80% survival chance (estimate)

Question is if it can attack a bomber before it deploy the its weapons.

What are you talking about? I said both Ticos and ABs can blast Tu-22M3s out of the sky, before they can launch.
Apparently the engine arrangement doesn't do that plane any favors, survivability-wise (read Buk in Georgia). One good hit is enough to bring it down.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TU-22 squadrons have standoff range with AS-4s.

But Tu-22M3 with such load-out has loiter time of potato and no in-flight refueling capability.
SM-3 and SM-6 can blast it out of the sky before it can deploy that glorified, obsolete silver bullet of a missile.

It is a bit too much capability expected from the AB.

It has only 96 launch tube.

Each onyx cost 2 launch tube (8 mid range missile) , smallest salvo 16 missile, 32 tube .
You need 4 long range missile against each aircraft, means 32 for 8 air plane.


And it need tubes as well for ABM purposes, it needs the remaining tubes for that.


In that case the AB can defend against 8 aircraft and 16 onyx with 50-80% survival chance (estimate)

Question is if it can attack a bomber before it deploy the its weapons.

What

KiloGolf wrote:

What are you talking about? I said both Ticos and ABs can blast Tu-22M3s out of the sky, before they can launch.
Apparently the engine arrangement doesn't do that plane any favors, survivability-wise (read Buk in Georgia). One good hit is enough to bring it down.

Minimum missile launch is 4 from a BUK against anything that can fly .

increase range = increase number of required missiles.

600 km is the minimum interceptor range, it is pretty much the very edge of the spy-1 sensing capability.

The AB has quite small chance to hit and kill it.


It needs long range sensors even in this scenario.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

What are you talking about? I said both Ticos and ABs can blast Tu-22M3s out of the sky, before they can launch.
Apparently the engine arrangement doesn't do that plane any favors, survivability-wise (read Buk in Georgia). One good hit is enough to bring it down.

Minimum missile launch is 4 from a BUK against anything that can fly  .

One Buk was enough to bring it down on the spot. Given that both SM-3 and SM-6 are more modern and sophisticated missiles, hardly a few are needed to bring down an entire flight of slow-movers like the Tu-22M3s. Russian Navy operates less Tu-22M3s than the entire US fleet of ABs. Just for some numbers talk.

Singular_Transform wrote:600 km is the minimum interceptor range, it is pretty much the very edge of the spy-1 sensing capability.

The AB has quite small chance to hit and kill it.

It needs long range sensors even in this scenario.

ABs and Ticos can comfortably shoot down incoming Backfires well before they can release the AS-4. That ship has sailed since the 90s.
It's not on the edge of anything. Well within their capability.

KiloGolf wrote:


One Buk was enough to bring it down on the spot. Given that both SM-3 and SM-6 are more modern and sophisticated missiles, hardly a few are needed to bring down an entire flight of Tu-22M3s. Russian Navy operates less Tu-22M3s than the entire US fleet of ABs. Just for some numbers talk.



ABs and Ticos can comfortably shoot down incoming Backfires well before they can release the AS-4.
It's not on the edge of anything. Well within their capability.

Real war is not a video game.

Real war is a game theory calculation.

One rocket is nothing else , just -one rocket.

Missile hit probability decrease by the square of distance, radar detection capability by the fourth power of distance.

Interceptor G reserve has to be three times more at least than the target.

The aircraft will "see" the AB radars. The ship need to continuously use it radar, means the aircraft KNOW what is the evading height.

It will stay under that, and will simply launch the rocket and turn back without the AB knowing anything about its presence.


If there is early warning aircraft then that will be killed first,and after that the ship.

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:


One Buk was enough to bring it down on the spot. Given that both SM-3 and SM-6 are more modern and sophisticated missiles, hardly a few are needed to bring down an entire flight of Tu-22M3s. Russian Navy operates less Tu-22M3s than the entire US fleet of ABs. Just for some numbers talk.



ABs and Ticos can comfortably shoot down incoming Backfires well before they can release the AS-4.
It's not on the edge of anything. Well within their capability.

Real war is not a video game.

Real war is a game theory calculation.

One rocket is nothing else , just -one rocket.

Missile hit probability decrease by the square of distance, radar detection capability by the fourth power of distance.

Interceptor G reserve has to be three times more at least than the target.

The aircraft will "see" the AB radars. The ship need to continuously use it radar, means the aircraft KNOW what is the evading height.

It will stay under that, and will simply launch the rocket and turn back without the AB knowing anything about its presence.


If there is early warning aircraft then that will be killed first,and after that the ship.

You assume that the Backfire can "see" them. It won't, not always anyway and not all of them.

KiloGolf wrote:



You assume that the Backfire can "see" them. It won't, not always anyway and not all of them.

Basic law of radar & radar detection: radar sensitivity decrease by the fourth power of distance, radar detection capability decrease by the square of distance.

If the aircraft can't see the ship, then the sip can't see the aircraft.