VMF vs. USN scenarios

Austin wrote:2 ) Regarding Oscar its very valid , so USN wont wait for Oscar to launch its missile but would pro-actively go and hunt for it and destroy as much of those asset as possible ....so goes with Russian SSBN.

Go hunt where? Across the oceans?  

Austin wrote:Mindstorm I will read those article but two quick points to be made.

1 ) Since the late 90's the advent of C4ISR and Revolution in Information Warfare in the USN has made it possible to have real time information from all asset integrated into one ...... the quantum leap in communication has helped integration of on board and off board submarine from all asset Ships, Air and Submarine into one single picture , this makes USN very capable in detecting missile as soon as it gets launched .......giving it a very big window to intercept with all asset it has.

So what Admiral Elmo Zumwalt mentioned in 70's is not really valid now ...h....due to quantum jump in capabilities and supersonic missile has been the same since 70 except it got smaller and perhaps a bit faster.

If i may rudely interrupt, But IMO , regarding reaction time, while the carrier groups' sensors, communications and computers have evolved significantly, the men bhind them are very much the same, human and there is bound to be some disconnect with these two components of the network that a more sophisticated missile can use.

Austin wrote:
2 ) Regarding Oscar its very valid , so USN wont wait for Oscar to launch its missile but would pro-actively go and hunt for it and destroy as much of those asset as possible ....so goes with Russian SSBN.

How much time would it take for an oscar to salvo all its missiles?

Austin wrote:
May be 15 years from now with planned sustained funding Russian Navy will be at a qualatitively different level then it is today but if you talk of today , the RuN is much outclassed by USN this is due to lack of funding in past two decades.

IMO because these guys have been at the forefront behind the offensive agains the AC, they should have a much better idea of what to do and not what to do.

Viktor wrote:

Austin wrote:2 ) Regarding Oscar its very valid , so USN wont wait for Oscar to launch its missile but would pro-actively go and hunt for it and destroy as much of those asset as possible ....so goes with Russian SSBN.

Go hunt where? Across the oceans?  

Yes aided by Naval Intelligence , ASW Assets of which USN possess formidable array , Satellites based Detection system just to name a few

The Runavy will be outclassed in our lifetimes, always.

But that doesn't matter because it has a stronger anti-carrier punch than any other Navy the US faces, by far. And that has always been the case.
Really, Russian navy doesn't need anything else as far as the US goes.

Austin wrote:1 ) Since the late 90's the advent of C4ISR and Revolution in Information Warfare in the USN has made it possible to have real time information from all asset integrated into one ...... the quantum leap in communication has helped integration of on board and off board submarine from all asset Ships, Air and Submarine into one single picture , this makes USN very capable in detecting missile as soon as it gets launched .......giving it a very big window to intercept with all asset it has.

All the networking, information's processing and data sharing capabilities of this world would matter very very low in this question Austin.

All what would matter would be simply the order of magnitude of IR emission within a finited spectrum part -with relatively higher atmospheric penetration index- at launch instant of those missiles (admitting even that an available EW space based asset of the type would ,for sheer luck, be present at covering this part of ocean in that instant  ) and we know that this threshold is several order of magnitude lower than that of the ICBM/SLBMs in theirs boost-phase that those space based assets are constructed to detect.


Outside this very remote chance ,anyhow useful only establish at maximum a launch warning alert, you wouldn't have any type of early information to share about a saturating AShMs attack executed from similar enormous range from a CvBG for sheer metrical limits    

When our Institutes ,capable to realize the first and unique space based constellation capable to achieve continue active/passive detection and tracking of enemy surface units in plain Oceans and OTH missile correction toward target area (when US Navy could achieve similar positional data only with direct local E-2/P-3 air reconnaissance ! ) have declared to work to achieve ,in future, the revolutionary capability to detect and track cruise missiles through space based sensors , the notion accounted as wonderwaffe over-ocean....
This say something  


In reality the attack previously described would see, very likely detected, at early, one of the groups of the multi-stage 3M54s at middle altitude in a sector still at subsonic speed by an E-2 followed some dozen of seconds after by one of the groups of Granit incoming at higher altitude at Mach 2,6 .



At this point any other airborne sensor of the CvBG....if available....would attempt to achieve early detection of other Group of missiles incoming from different vectors in other peripherical sectors of coverage.

Chances of theirs neutralization before the Mach 2.9 sea skimming stage of Kaliber groups and final swarm approach at Mach 1,6 of Granit groups would be completed (all from different vectors of attack, at very low altitude ,violently maneuvering and withing active ECM ) in this very compressed time ?

Well the prayers  previously cited would surely be more appropriate for the very unlucky circumstance.

Viktor wrote:Go hunt where? Across the oceans?  

The US Navy has already created choke points at strategic junctures in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans . These choke points have state of the art sensors that can detect any type of submarine if they cross the line .

Department Of Defense wrote:

Viktor wrote:Go hunt where? Across the oceans?  

The US Navy has already created choke points at strategic junctures in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans . These choke points have state of the art sensors that can detect any type of submarine if they cross the line .

These sensors have always been claimed as capable of detecting "anything" and Soviet boats slipped past them on numerous occasions.

TR1 wrote:and Soviet boats slipped past them on numerous occasions.

That too would be a claim .

But think about it logically . It is far easier to develop sensors that can detect submarines than it is the other way round.

Department Of Defense wrote:

Viktor wrote:Go hunt where? Across the oceans?  

The US Navy has already created choke points at strategic junctures in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans . These choke points have state of the art sensors that can detect any type of submarine if they cross the line .

Russia has sensors and choke points on its own so whats the point?

Viktor wrote:Russia has sensors and choke points on its own so whats the point?

Precisely ! That's the point . Russia & the US both keep track of the other's submarines through sensors located at strategic choke points .

Not trying to score brownie points but Russia's anti submarine warfare capabilities are by and large limited to warships & helos . The aircraft dimension is missing . Russia needs to invest in aircrafts like the P 8 Poseidon in order to carry out long range anti submarine operations.

We can't consider it as an advantage but they said no need to develop missiles like Russian ones, it's because they have other strong points to control the situation ,as I mentioned before the US navy airforce and submarines "as they said" have strong hands to face Russian submarines that threaten US carriers,

Really?

Because I see a whole new generation of Russian Subs on the verge of entering service and AFAIK the west was having serious trouble with the last generation.

A data link between ASW helos and carriers and F-18 or F-35 could make that F-18 to go farther from the carrier and shot some anti-submarine--anti ships missiles to counter the threat against their carriers , ofcourse the Russian defences are pretty good but we are talking in a theoretical scenario so the others have right to bet on their power .

What?

F-18 and F-35 will not be hunting submarines... they will have other roles and duties. The helicopters will be searching for subs cubic metres of the ocean at a time... the distance they can detect modern subs is shrinking all the time.

Against a third world country they might have lots of satellite coverage and unlimited use of datalinks, but when operational they will be restricting their comms emmissions to prevent the enemy from detecting them... so datalinks OFF.

If Oscar like submarine tries to use stand off missile like Granit then it will too face formidable barrage of SM2,Aster or similar missile with Electronic Jamming and Soft countermeasures ( Soft/Hard Kill ) .......so all Oscar can do is to fire their missile using long stand off range of Granit and hope it manages to penetrate AD assets and hit the target ....call it Spray and Pray.

Spray and pray? Granit does not lose accuracy or potency by being launched from maximum range. One Oscar will not fire on a battlegroup alone... it will be a coordinated attack using multiple vessels and platforms including aircraft, ships, subs... perhaps even civilian cargo container ships...

The advantage always lays with the attacker... wait till the carriers get near land which will effect their radar performance/coverage, wait till neutral ships are nearby... lots of options... hell the single Oscar could wait till a sea state 6 storm and then launch its missiles... does Aster and ESSM etc work in a storm?

1 ) Since the late 90's the advent of C4ISR and Revolution in Information Warfare in the USN has made it possible to have real time information from all asset integrated into one ...... the quantum leap in communication has helped integration of on board and off board submarine from all asset Ships, Air and Submarine into one single picture , this makes USN very capable in detecting missile as soon as it gets launched .......giving it a very big window to intercept with all asset it has.

That is what Sigma-2 does for the Russian Navy, so with enemy missiles travelling at subsonic speed it is even safer...

2 ) Regarding Oscar its very valid , so USN wont wait for Oscar to launch its missile but would pro-actively go and hunt for it and destroy as much of those asset as possible ....so goes with Russian SSBN.

When there are no other threats it will deploy its ASW helos which are slow and cannot cover enormous areas of sea quickly... the first enemy aircraft spotted and those ASW aircraft will be withdrawn because they are terribly vulnerable to R-77s and R-73s... and then the attack subs and cruise missile subs can move in...

How much time would it take for an oscar to salvo all its missiles?

About 30 seconds.

Just a question , how much is Tartus port important to Russian Navy ....should they loose it if rebels take over Damasucs at some point in time how badly will it be affected without Tartus ?

A very small maintainence base with mostly civilian manning.

Russia needs to invest in aircrafts like the P 8 Poseidon in order to carry out long range anti submarine operations.

Yeah... if only the Russians had a plane like P-8 with long range and the ability to detect enemy submarines... Perhaps you might have heard of the Tu-142 at some stage? In comparison to the flight RANGE of 2,222km of the P-8, the Tu-142M has a flight RADIUS of 6,500km... a range of 13,000km... even the old Il-38 May can fly 9,000km and outranges the 737 based P-8 by more than 3 times....

GarryB wrote:

What Frigate is better armed than that?

Clearly you dont see the problem.   


Is Irrelevant which frigate is better. It will not even matter if NATO have no frigates at all to compare.
Is not a vis vs vis competition. NATO will not Care about their Frigates being weaker. and don't need to show a frigate at all.
if you RUssia bring a Frigate, NATO will bring what they have.. Destroyers and Cruisers with at least 1 aircraft carrier.
and will stay away of Oniks Range and use its Navl Airforce for offense.

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

This means that the Grigorovich-class frigate will be limited on its operations.
Cannot operate without a stronger ship escort that can defend the frigate from land airforce or aircraft carrier airforce.
Because it will be sniped by any combat jet and could not fight back. So it will be limited by Coastal patrols
to be defended by Air Force or escorted by an aircraft carrier or a Kirov.

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.

In case of any war.. NATO naval airforce- any third world country airforce will deal with Russian navy limitation against Airforce.
and Use their combat jets against Russia navy.. Major enemy of Russian NAVY will not be NATO warships but Combat jets .

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

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

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

What Frigate is better armed than that?

Clearly you dont see the problem.   


Is Irrelevant which frigate is better. It will not even matter if NATO have no frigates at all to compare.
Is not a vis vs vis competition. NATO will not Care about their Frigates being weaker. and don't need to show a frigate at all.
if you RUssia bring a Frigate, NATO will bring  what they have.. Destroyers and Cruisers with at least 1 aircraft carrier.
and will stay away of Oniks Range and use its Navl Airforce for offense.

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

This means that the Grigorovich-class frigate will be limited on its operations.
Cannot operate without a stronger ship escort that can defend the frigate from land airforce or aircraft carrier airforce.
Because it will be sniped by any combat jet and could not fight back. So it will be limited by Coastal patrols
to be defended by Air Force or escorted by an aircraft carrier or a Kirov.

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.

In case of any war.. NATO naval airforce- any third world country airforce will deal with Russian navy limitation against Airforce.
and Use their combat jets against Russia navy..  Major enemy of Russian NAVY will not be NATO warships but Combat jets .

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

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

OK, first, Russian naval doctrine is defensive, so in WW3 you can bet, that you won't see Russian SAGs contesting GIUK gap, unfortunately.

And second, ships tend to be vulnerable against aircraft, and that's not limited to "gr" frigate only.
Send 3 squadrons of F-18s against the Kirov, and you'll see it in flames.

Equally, send 3 squadrons of Su-30s against the Ticonderoga, and you'll see it in flames too.


To George1:
Yes. You may actually call gorshie "the pocket destroyer".

To George1:
Yes, that's the case too.
Heck, if you have 80USD to spare, you can buy computer game "Command: modern air/naval operations" and try it out yourself   

etaepsilonk wrote:


Send 3 squadrons of F-18s against the Kirov, and you'll see it in flames.

Not really..   
A kirov cruiser is literary a SAM FORTRESS ,have Massive Sam defenses. with ridiculous heavy CIWS defenses. not a single Harpoon
flying at mach 0.8 (very slow) anti-ship missile will penetrate its CIWS defenses. have about 400 sams.. about ~100 of them S-300 missiles. After any Nation lose the first 50 planes they will give up. You cannot overwhelm a Kirov defense so easily it was made to handle a small carrier battle group.. In the other hand NATO warships its CIWS are useless against Oniks missiles,they flight too fast for CIWS do anything and do maneuvers at terminal phase. You will have like 2-3 seconds to defeat an Oniks with CIWS defenses because its range is only 3-4 km. Aegis Sams Air defenses neither can handle well Kalibrs missiles.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home


The problem is not with Kirov..those cruisers can fight back. the problem is that Russia only have 1 kirov in service and the Grigo Frigates
can be overwhelmed by small Airforce and Cannot fight back. in the other hand a Gorshov can fight back with its Strong S-400 defenses and  2 or 3 Gorshov could replace the performance of 1 Kirov class . In short the Grigo are useless against Air force. is a purely defensive ship, and none of its good Kalibr missiles will be used. NATO warships will never get close to Russia navy in conflict but away of its combat range. And use Their big airforce and submarines to counter Russian Navy.

To vann7:
400 sams you say....
OK, let's use simple mathematics.
Let's say, that 2 sam missile salvo will destroy enemy ssm 100 percent, and have no malfunctions, aren't subject to jamming, missile decoys aren't used, etc., yo sum up, ideal conditions.

Then, a whole sam battery can intercept 200 missiles. Let's assume, that every F-18 carries 5 harpoons.
So, it takes 40 aircraft to completely deplete kirov's sam battery
Now, let's add another 8 planes (so, 48 for 4 squadrons).
And that actually leaves 40 missiles, whose can only be fend-off by CIWS battery
Are you absolutely sure, that they can reliably intercept those 40 missiles? HMS Sheffield couldn't...

etaepsilonk wrote:To vann7:
400 sams you say....
OK, let's use simple mathematics.
Let's say, that 2 sam missile salvo will destroy enemy ssm 100 percent, and have no malfunctions, aren't subject to jamming, missile decoys aren't used, etc., yo sum up, ideal conditions.

Then, a whole sam battery can intercept 200 missiles. Let's assume, that every F-18 carries 5 harpoons.
So, it takes 40 aircraft to completely deplete kirov's sam battery
Now, let's add another 8 planes (so, 48 for 4 squadrons).
And that actually leaves 40 missiles, whose can only be fend-off by CIWS battery
Are you absolutely sure, that they can reliably intercept those 40 missiles? HMS Sheffield couldn't...

The Kirov alone can shot down ~300 harpons/planes.with their Sams alone. not counting their CIWS. Those 40 combat jets will not have a lot of chance to fire a single Harpoon with S-300F defenses and 150km range. The harpoon range is 120km . Means the Kirov will fire first at start shooting down F/18s before they attack .Big massacre. and if missile launched their 6 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS will have a field day .  yes absolutely sure you can't beat a Kirov with a small airforce  .   

look what will happen to those harpoons or f-18 planes.
https://youtu.be/J7ssNPxyHp8

Also Just remember also that a Kirov is never alone.. it comes with a destroyer and something else. .

But anything can be overwhelmed for sure ,specially once you are out of bullets and missiles or too many at same time .
Thing is that makes more sense for Russia to make all their Medium warships with the capabilities to fight back an attacking airforce.. why? because they do not have the luxury of NATO to have an Airforce always with their navy. The only Kirov they have will not be always at hand and even less its dying aircraft carrier.

George1 wrote:


what about a Kh-32 against aircraft carrier??

Oh indeed.. very good missile.   

Which just prove my another point (in other discussions) of the need of Russia to focus less in navy.
And more on a tactical long range Airforce. A hypersonic High Altitude Bomber or at least a squadron of Pak-DA will neutralize
any Navy using long range missiles.


i have a question.. anyone have any website or info that confirm Gorshkov-class frigate S-400 (48N6) missiles with  400km Range?
I can see how the missiles can be mounted on any UKSK VLS cells ,what i don't see is how the frigate will be able to compact the Huge S-400 Radars ,its command center  and its many other equipment on a stealth frigate . The land S-400s require many trucks to carry ,aside of its launchers on land..

Vann7 wrote:

George1 wrote:


what about a Kh-32 against aircraft carrier??

Oh indeed.. very good missile.   

Which just prove my another point (in other discussions) of the need of Russia to focus less in navy.
And more on a tactical long range Airforce. A hypersonic High Altitude Bomber or at least a squadron of Pak-DA will neutralize
any Navy using long range missiles.


i have a question.. anyone have any website or info that confirm Gorshkov-class frigate S-400 (48N6) missiles with  400km Range?
I can see how the missiles can be mounted on any UKSK VLS cells ,what i don't see is how the frigate will be able to compact the Huge S-400 Radars ,its command center  and its many other equipment on a stealth frigate . The land S-400s require many trucks to carry ,aside of its launchers on land..

Few points:

1. You can not asses Grigorovic based on 6x Grigorovic VS whole NATO outcome
2. Hypersonic bombers will come in 2025-2030 timeframe
3. Untill then Subsonic/Supersonic bombers armed with hypersonic and subsonic and supersonic missiles will do (NATO has no defenses against it)
4. Going in the production of hypersonic carriers right now would demand crazy amounts of money and time and production facilities. Technology needs to mature.

All NATO sea-skimmers are subsonic, so that wouldn't be much of a problem for Russian frigates, corvettes or what erver.

A real threat would be an antiship dedicated version of the french ASMP-A missile with M3 speed.

Lol, yeah, if missile is not supersonic, then it's not a threat at all   

As I mentioned before, ships are very vulnerable from aircraft, be it a gunboat, or be it a battlecruiser.
But notice, if they're provided with air cover, their survivability increases dramatically.
With larger ships, frigates, destroyers (floating sam sites), that protection becomes mutual.
So, for instance, fighter can perform hit-and-run attacks against enemy, then run for sam cover. If enemy follows, then it can be ambushed by the mentioned ships and/or additional fighters.
I believe that such tactic allows to fend-off even numerically superior forces.

To vann7:

s-300 range is 150-200km, while harpoon range is about 280 km, so how exactly those f-18 will be getting destroyed again?   

Jeez, in ww2 pacific theatre, destruction of enemy carriers was an absolute priority, anyone curious, why?

etaepsilonk wrote:

To vann7:

s-300 range is 150-200km, while harpoon range is about 280 km, so how exactly those f-18 will be getting destroyed again?   

Jeez, in ww2 pacific theatre, destruction of enemy carriers was an absolute priority, anyone curious, why?

Latest Harpoons US navy use are Harpoon Block 2.. they are 124km range..   
Those you mentions were discontinued ..   

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


But to be fair ,Russia have been lucky because US sucks at designing Cruise Missiles. The New F-35 once enter in service
will make things more difficult because its armament will include Norway latest (NSM ) cruise missiles that even thought they
also suck for being same speed as Harpoons they have greater ranges of 300km+ ,so will allow to annoy those Russian old warships
and leave unharmed. Reason why Russia needs to hurry up with warships with S-400s defenses.


www.military.com/video/guided-missiles/antiship-missiles/jet-fighter-chases-naval-strike-missile/1187576322001/

As you can see in that video ,is not rocket science to intercept a Subsonic missile.. any warplane can chase them. launch
an IR missile and boom. easy kill. I have read you can even intercept them with manpads like Igla missiles that detect heat.   

There is nothing to worry about such missiles easy to spot missiles in small numbers ,any CIWS defense will stop them.
However in Massive Numbers launched at the same time things becomes complicated.


.

Vann7 wrote:
Latest Harpoons US navy use are Harpoon Block 2.. they are 124km range..   
Those you mentions were discontinued ..   

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

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)


Are you sure?  

To get that range the launch aircraft would have to be pretty high altitude.

The ship would have ample warning of the aircraft, and the incoming missiles.